UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
PAUL PODGORSKI, DOCKET NUMBER Appellant, DC-3443-23-0322-I-1
v.
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE DATE: July 16, 2024 CORPORATION, Agency.
THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1
Paul Podgorski , Charlotte, North Carolina, pro se.
Scott David Cooper , Esquire, Fairfax, Virginia, for the agency.
BEFORE
Cathy A. Harris, Chairman Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chairman Henry J. Kerner, Member
FINAL ORDER
¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which dismissed for lack of jurisdiction his appeal concerning his nonselection for multiple positions, finding that he failed to nonfrivolously allege that the agency subjected him to a suitability action. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the following circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous 1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c). 2
findings of material fact; the initial decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of statute or regulation or the erroneous application of the law to the facts of the case; the administrative judge’s rulings during either the course of the appeal or the initial decision were not consistent with required procedures or involved an abuse of discretion, and the resulting error affected the outcome of the case; or new and material evidence or legal argument is available that, despite the petitioner’s due diligence, was not available when the record closed. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.115 (5 C.F.R. § 1201.115). After fully considering the filings in this appeal, we conclude that the petitioner has not established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for review. Therefore, we DENY the petition for review and AFFIRM the initial decision, which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b). ¶2 On review, the appellant asserts many of the same arguments that he raised before the administrative judge. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. He also asserts that the agency’s purported policy of not referring to the hiring manager applications of employees who were previously removed from the agency for cause violates Office of Personnel Management (OPM) guidelines. Id. at 5-6. To the extent the appellant is attempting to assert that an employment practice applied to him by OPM violates a basic requirement in 5 C.F.R. § 300.103, the appellant did not raise such a claim before the administrative judge despite notice as to how to establish jurisdiction over such a claim, Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 5 at 2-3, and we therefore decline to consider it on review, see Clay v. Department of the Army, 123 M.S.P.R. 245, ¶ 6 (2016) (stating that the Board generally will not consider an argument raised for the first time in a petition for review absent a showing that it is based on new and material evidence not previously available despite the party’s due diligence). ¶3 Regarding the suitability action appeal, the appellant challenges the administrative judge’s statement in the initial decision that some of his applications were referred to the hiring manager, stating that the administrative 3
judge’s conclusion was not supported by statements from agency officials. PFR File, Tab 1 at 6. Even if the appellant was not referred to the hiring official for any of the positions at issue, we agree with the administrative judge’s conclusion that it was the agency’s application of a policy, and not a case-specific examination of the appellant’s prior conduct as it bears on his current suitability, that led to his nonselection for various positions and, therefore, the Board lacks jurisdiction over the appeal as a suitability action. IAF, Tab 20, Initial Decision (ID) at 4-5; see Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 28 F. App’x 936, 938-39 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction an appeal challenging an agency policy that refused to employ persons who were previously removed from Federal service for cause, concluding that the employee had failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation that the agency subjected him to a suitability determination). 2 For the reasons set forth in the initial decision, we agree with the administrative judge that the appellant has failed to nonfrivolously allege jurisdiction over his suitability action appeal. 3 ID at 4-5.
NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4 You may obtain review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). By statute, the nature of your claims determines the time limit for seeking such
2 The Board may choose to follow nonprecedential decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that it finds persuasive, as we do here. See Dean v. Office of Personnel Management, 115 M.S.P.R. 157, ¶ 14 (2010). Although Malone was issued before OPM amended its regulations in 2008, we find that those amendments further support the holding in Malone that a nonselection is not a suitability action, even if it is based on the criteria in 5 C.F.R. § 731.202. Malone, 28 F. App’x at 938-39; 5 C.F.R. § 731.203(b) (“A non-selection, or cancellation of eligibility for a specific position based on an objection to an eligible . . . is not a suitability action even if it is based on reasons set forth in § 731.202.”). 3 We deny the appellant’s motion to strike the agency’s response to his petition for review and find that the agency’s response was timely filed in accordance with 5 C.F.R. § 1201.23. 4 Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated the notice of review rights included in final decisions. As indicated in the notice, the Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter. 4
review and the appropriate forum with which to file. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b). Although we offer the following summary of available appeal rights, the Merit Systems Protection Board does not provide legal advice on which option is most appropriate for your situation and the rights described below do not represent a statement of how courts will rule regarding which cases fall within their jurisdiction. If you wish to seek review of this final decision, you should immediately review the law applicable to your claims and carefully follow all filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file within the applicable time limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your chosen forum. Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices of review below to decide which one applies to your particular case.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
PAUL PODGORSKI, DOCKET NUMBER Appellant, DC-3443-23-0322-I-1
v.
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE DATE: July 16, 2024 CORPORATION, Agency.
THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1
Paul Podgorski , Charlotte, North Carolina, pro se.
Scott David Cooper , Esquire, Fairfax, Virginia, for the agency.
BEFORE
Cathy A. Harris, Chairman Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chairman Henry J. Kerner, Member
FINAL ORDER
¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which dismissed for lack of jurisdiction his appeal concerning his nonselection for multiple positions, finding that he failed to nonfrivolously allege that the agency subjected him to a suitability action. Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the following circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous 1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c). 2
findings of material fact; the initial decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of statute or regulation or the erroneous application of the law to the facts of the case; the administrative judge’s rulings during either the course of the appeal or the initial decision were not consistent with required procedures or involved an abuse of discretion, and the resulting error affected the outcome of the case; or new and material evidence or legal argument is available that, despite the petitioner’s due diligence, was not available when the record closed. Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.115 (5 C.F.R. § 1201.115). After fully considering the filings in this appeal, we conclude that the petitioner has not established any basis under section 1201.115 for granting the petition for review. Therefore, we DENY the petition for review and AFFIRM the initial decision, which is now the Board’s final decision. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b). ¶2 On review, the appellant asserts many of the same arguments that he raised before the administrative judge. Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. He also asserts that the agency’s purported policy of not referring to the hiring manager applications of employees who were previously removed from the agency for cause violates Office of Personnel Management (OPM) guidelines. Id. at 5-6. To the extent the appellant is attempting to assert that an employment practice applied to him by OPM violates a basic requirement in 5 C.F.R. § 300.103, the appellant did not raise such a claim before the administrative judge despite notice as to how to establish jurisdiction over such a claim, Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 5 at 2-3, and we therefore decline to consider it on review, see Clay v. Department of the Army, 123 M.S.P.R. 245, ¶ 6 (2016) (stating that the Board generally will not consider an argument raised for the first time in a petition for review absent a showing that it is based on new and material evidence not previously available despite the party’s due diligence). ¶3 Regarding the suitability action appeal, the appellant challenges the administrative judge’s statement in the initial decision that some of his applications were referred to the hiring manager, stating that the administrative 3
judge’s conclusion was not supported by statements from agency officials. PFR File, Tab 1 at 6. Even if the appellant was not referred to the hiring official for any of the positions at issue, we agree with the administrative judge’s conclusion that it was the agency’s application of a policy, and not a case-specific examination of the appellant’s prior conduct as it bears on his current suitability, that led to his nonselection for various positions and, therefore, the Board lacks jurisdiction over the appeal as a suitability action. IAF, Tab 20, Initial Decision (ID) at 4-5; see Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 28 F. App’x 936, 938-39 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction an appeal challenging an agency policy that refused to employ persons who were previously removed from Federal service for cause, concluding that the employee had failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation that the agency subjected him to a suitability determination). 2 For the reasons set forth in the initial decision, we agree with the administrative judge that the appellant has failed to nonfrivolously allege jurisdiction over his suitability action appeal. 3 ID at 4-5.
NOTICE OF APPEAL RIGHTS 4 You may obtain review of this final decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(1). By statute, the nature of your claims determines the time limit for seeking such
2 The Board may choose to follow nonprecedential decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that it finds persuasive, as we do here. See Dean v. Office of Personnel Management, 115 M.S.P.R. 157, ¶ 14 (2010). Although Malone was issued before OPM amended its regulations in 2008, we find that those amendments further support the holding in Malone that a nonselection is not a suitability action, even if it is based on the criteria in 5 C.F.R. § 731.202. Malone, 28 F. App’x at 938-39; 5 C.F.R. § 731.203(b) (“A non-selection, or cancellation of eligibility for a specific position based on an objection to an eligible . . . is not a suitability action even if it is based on reasons set forth in § 731.202.”). 3 We deny the appellant’s motion to strike the agency’s response to his petition for review and find that the agency’s response was timely filed in accordance with 5 C.F.R. § 1201.23. 4 Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated the notice of review rights included in final decisions. As indicated in the notice, the Board cannot advise which option is most appropriate in any matter. 4
review and the appropriate forum with which to file. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b). Although we offer the following summary of available appeal rights, the Merit Systems Protection Board does not provide legal advice on which option is most appropriate for your situation and the rights described below do not represent a statement of how courts will rule regarding which cases fall within their jurisdiction. If you wish to seek review of this final decision, you should immediately review the law applicable to your claims and carefully follow all filing time limits and requirements. Failure to file within the applicable time limit may result in the dismissal of your case by your chosen forum. Please read carefully each of the three main possible choices of review below to decide which one applies to your particular case. If you have questions about whether a particular forum is the appropriate one to review your case, you should contact that forum for more information.
(1) Judicial review in general . As a general rule, an appellant seeking judicial review of a final Board order must file a petition for review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which must be received by the court within 60 calendar days of the date of issuance of this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A). If you submit a petition for review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the following address: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 717 Madison Place, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20439
Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11. 5
If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
(2) Judicial or EEOC review of cases involving a claim of discrimination . This option applies to you only if you have claimed that you were affected by an action that is appealable to the Board and that such action was based, in whole or in part, on unlawful discrimination. If so, you may obtain judicial review of this decision—including a disposition of your discrimination claims —by filing a civil action with an appropriate U.S. district court ( not the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), within 30 calendar days after you receive this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2); see Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 582 U.S. 420 (2017). If you have a representative in this case, and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file with the district court no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives this decision. If the action involves a claim of discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling condition, you may be entitled to representation by a court-appointed lawyer and to waiver of any requirement of prepayment of fees, costs, or other security. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) and 29 U.S.C. § 794a. Contact information for U.S. district courts can be found at their respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below: http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx . Alternatively, you may request review by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of your discrimination claims only, excluding all other issues . 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). You must file any such request with the 6
EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations within 30 calendar days after you receive this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1). If you have a representative in this case, and your representative receives this decision before you do, then you must file with the EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after your representative receives this decision. If you submit a request for review to the EEOC by regular U.S. mail, the address of the EEOC is: Office of Federal Operations Equal Employment Opportunity Commission P.O. Box 77960 Washington, D.C. 20013
If you submit a request for review to the EEOC via commercial delivery or by a method requiring a signature, it must be addressed to: Office of Federal Operations Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 131 M Street, N.E. Suite 5SW12G Washington, D.C. 20507
(3) Judicial review pursuant to the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 . This option applies to you only if you have raised claims of reprisal for whistleblowing disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) or other protected activities listed in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D). If so, and your judicial petition for review “raises no challenge to the Board’s disposition of allegations of a prohibited personnel practice described in section 2302(b) other than practices described in section 2302(b)(8), or 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D),” then you may file a petition for judicial review either with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction. 5 The court of appeals must receive your petition for 5 The original statutory provision that provided for judicial review of certain whistleblower claims by any court of appeals of competent jurisdiction expired on December 27, 2017. The All Circuit Review Act, signed into law by the President on July 7, 2018, permanently allows appellants to file petitions for judicial review of 7
review within 60 days of the date of issuance of this decision. 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(B). If you submit a petition for judicial review to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you must submit your petition to the court at the following address: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 717 Madison Place, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20439
Additional information about the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is available at the court’s website, www.cafc.uscourts.gov. Of particular relevance is the court’s “Guide for Pro Se Petitioners and Appellants,” which is contained within the court’s Rules of Practice, and Forms 5, 6, 10, and 11. If you are interested in securing pro bono representation for an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, you may visit our website at http://www.mspb.gov/probono for information regarding pro bono representation for Merit Systems Protection Board appellants before the Federal Circuit. The Board neither endorses the services provided by any attorney nor warrants that any attorney will accept representation in a given case.
MSPB decisions in certain whistleblower reprisal cases with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or any other circuit court of appeals of competent jurisdiction. The All Circuit Review Act is retroactive to November 26, 2017. Pub. L. No. 115-195, 132 Stat. 1510. 8
Contact information for the courts of appeals can be found at their respective websites, which can be accessed through the link below: http://www.uscourts.gov/Court_Locator/CourtWebsites.aspx .
FOR THE BOARD: ______________________________ Gina K. Grippando Clerk of the Board Washington, D.C.