Reynaldo Alvara v. Department of Homeland Security

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Reynaldo Alvara v. Department of Homeland Security. Read the opinion of the Court — 2014 MSPB 63
Merit Systems Protection Board·Decided October 21, 2014·Unpublished

Opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

REYNALDO ALVARA, MSPB DOCKET NUMBER Appellant, DA-0752-10-0223-R-1

v. EEOC DOCKET NUMBER 0321110053 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Agency. DATE: October 21, 2014

THIS ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

Gary M. Gilbert, Esquire, Ernest C. Hadley, Esquire, Julie E. Rook, Esquire, and Shannon C. Leary, Esquire, Silver Spring, Maryland, for the appellant.

Lamont D. Nahrgang, Esquire, and Peter Arcuri, El Paso, Texas, for the agency.

BEFORE

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman Anne M. Wagner, Vice Chairman Mark A. Robbins, Member

ORDER

¶1 The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) referred this case to the Board for further consideration under 5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(5)(B) because the

1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions.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

EEOC did not agree with the Board’s final order in this appeal. The Board disagreed with the EEOC’s decision, reaffirmed its prior decision, and certified the case to the Special Panel pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7702(d)(1). Alvara v. Department of Homeland Security, 121 M.S.P.R. 453 (2014). The Special Panel adopted the EEOC’s decision 2 and referred the case back to the Board pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7702(d)(3), directing that it forward the case to the administrative judge to adjudicate the appellant’s compensatory damages claim, order the agency to take appropriate action including cancellation of the removal and the award of all payments and benefits to which the appellant is entitled as a result of the Special Panel’s decision, and notify the parties that enforcement of the decision and this Order is the responsibility of the Board. Alvara v. Department of Homeland Security, 2014 MSPB 77, ¶ 46 (Spec. Pan.). ¶2 Accordingly, we FORWARD this case to the regional office for docketing of the appellant’s claim for compensatory damages. The administrative judge shall permit the appellant to present evidence and argument in support of his claim and shall issue a decision resolving the claim. ¶3 We ORDER the agency to cancel the appellant’s removal action and restore the appellant effective January 7, 2010. See Kerr v. National Endowment for the Arts, 726 F.2d 730 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The agency must complete this action no later than 20 days after the date of this decision. ¶4 We also ORDER the agency to pay the appellant the correct amount of back pay, interest on back pay, and other benefits under the Office of Personnel Management’s regulations, no later than 60 calendar days after the date of this decision. We ORDER the appellant to cooperate in good faith in the agency’s efforts to calculate the amount of back pay, interest, and benefits due, and to provide all necessary information the agency requests to help it carry out the Board's Order. If there is a dispute about the amount of back pay, interest due,

2 Vice Chairman Wagner dissented from the Special Panel’s decision. 3

and/or other benefits, we ORDER the agency to pay the appellant the undisputed amount no later than 60 calendar days after the date of this decision. ¶5 We further ORDER the agency to tell the appellant promptly in writing when it believes it has fully carried out the Board’s Order and of the actions it took to carry out the Board’s Order. The appellant, if not notified, should ask the agency about its progress. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.181(b). ¶6 No later than 30 days after the agency tells the appellant that it has fully carried out the Board’s Order, the appellant may file a petition for enforcement with the office that issued the initial decision on this appeal if the appellant believes that the agency did not fully carry out the Board’s Order. The petition should contain specific reasons why the appellant believes that the agency has not fully carried out the Board’s Order, and should include the dates and results of any communications with the agency. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.182(a). ¶7 For agencies whose payroll is administered by either the National Finance Center of the Department of Agriculture (NFC) or the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), two lists of the information and documentation necessary to process payments and adjustments resulting from a Board decision are attached. The agency is ORDERED to timely provide DFAS or NFC with all documentation necessary to process payments and adjustments resulting from the Board’s decision in accordance with the attached lists so that payment can be made within the 60-day period set forth above.

NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING YOUR RIGHT TO REQUEST ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS You may be entitled to be paid by the agency for your reasonable attorney fees and costs. To be paid, you must meet the requirements set out at Title 5 of the United States Code (5 U.S.C.), sections 7701(g), 1221(g), or 1214(g). The regulations may be found at 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.201, 1201.202, and 1201.203. If you believe you meet these requirements, you must file a motion for attorney fees 4

WITHIN 60 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS DECISION. You must file your attorney fees motion with the office that issued the initial decision on your appeal.

FOR THE BOARD: ______________________________ William D. Spencer Clerk of the Board Washington, D.C. DFAS CHECKLIST INFORMATION REQUIRED BY DFAS IN ORDER TO PROCESS PAYMENTS AGREED UPON IN SETTLEMENT CASES OR AS ORDERED BY THE MERIT SYSTEMS  PROTECTION BOARD AS CHECKLIST: INFORMATION REQUIRED BY IN ORDER TO PROCESS PAYMENTS AGREED UPON IN SETTLEMENT CASES CIVILIAN PERSONNEL OFFICE MUST NOTIFY CIVILIAN PAYROLL OFFICE VIA COMMAND LETTER WITH THE FOLLOWING: 1. Statement if Unemployment Benefits are to be deducted, with dollar amount, address and POC to send. 2. Statement that employee was counseled concerning Health Benefits and TSP and the election forms if necessary. 3. Statement concerning entitlement to overtime, night differential, shift premium, Sunday Premium, etc, with number of hours and dates for each entitlement. 4. If Back Pay Settlement was prior to conversion to DCPS (Defense Civilian Pay System), a statement certifying any lump sum payment with number of hours and amount paid and/or any severance pay that was paid with dollar amount. 5. Statement if interest is payable with beginning date of accrual.

6. Corrected Time and Attendance if applicable.

ATTACHMENTS TO THE LETTER SHOULD BE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Copy of Settlement Agreement and/or the MSPB Order. 2.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Reynaldo Alvara v. Department of Homeland Security, (Miss. 2014).

Reynaldo Alvara v. Department of Homeland Security (Reynaldo Alvara v. Department of Homeland Security) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

John H. Kerr v. National Endowment for the Arts
726 F.2d 730 (Federal Circuit, 1984)
Reynaldo Alvara v. Department of Homeland Security
2014 MSPB 77 (Merit Systems Protection Board, 2014)