Tonya R Mosley v. Department of Housing and Urban Development

CourtMerit Systems Protection Board
DecidedJuly 22, 2024
DocketSF-0752-23-0252-I-1
StatusUnpublished

This text of Tonya R Mosley v. Department of Housing and Urban Development (Tonya R Mosley v. Department of Housing and Urban Development) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Merit Systems Protection Board primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Tonya R Mosley v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, (Miss. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

TONYA R. MOSLEY, DOCKET NUMBER Appellant, SF-0752-23-0252-I-1

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND DATE: July 22, 2024 URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Agency.

THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

Tonya R. Mosley , Palm Desert, California, pro se.

Dallae Chin , Esquire, and Bridget Park , San Francisco, California, for the agency.

BEFORE

Cathy A. Harris, Chairman Raymond A. Limon, Vice Chairman Henry J. Kerner, Member*

*Member Kerner did not participate in the adjudication of this appeal.

FINAL ORDER

¶1 The appellant has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which reversed the agency’s probationary termination action for lack of due process because the appellant was a tenured employee. On petition for review, the 1 A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders, but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions.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

appellant reraises her affirmative defenses and request for compensatory damages, and she argues that the administrative judge failed to address all her allegations of agency wrongdoing. She also reraises her various motions and objections made below, including, among others, her motions for the disqualification of the administrative judge, her motions for the disqualification of agency representatives, and her objection to the close of the record. ¶2 Generally, we grant petitions such as this one only in the following circumstances: the initial decision contains erroneous 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. 2 5 C.F.R. § 1201.113(b). ¶3 We also deny the appellant’s request for enforcement of the administrative judge’s interim relief order, Petition for Review (PFR) File, Tabs 14, 16, as well as the agency’s request for a status conference concerning its implementation, 2 The appellant has moved to file a supplemental pleading based on her receipt of her deposition transcript, which was taken by the agency prior to the issuance of the initial decision but not made available to her until after the close of the record below. Petition for Review File, Tab 9 at 4, Tab 11; Initial Appeal File, Tab 58. We deny the appellant’s motion because she has not shown that her deposition transcript contained new and material evidence that she could not present in another format below. See Avansino v. U.S. Postal Service, 3 M.S.P.R. 211, 214 (1980); see also Spivey v. Department of Justice, 2022 MSPB 24, ¶ 15; Russo v. Veterans Administration, 3 M.S.P.R. 345, 349 (1980). 3

PFR File, Tab 20. The Board generally does not entertain interim compliance proceedings. See Owens v. Department of Homeland Security, 2023 MSPB 7, ¶ 9; Ginocchi v. Department of the Treasury, 53 M.S.P.R. 62, 71 n.6 (1992). If, following the Board’s Final Order in this case, the appellant believes that the agency is in noncompliance, she may file a petition for enforcement in accordance with the instructions provided below. Owens, 2023 MSPB 7, ¶ 10; 5 C.F.R. § 1201.182(a).

ORDER ¶4 We ORDER the agency to cancel the removal and to retroactively restore the appellant effective March 9, 2023. 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. ¶5 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, 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. ¶6 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 has taken 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). ¶7 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 4

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). ¶8 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 forth 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

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

Related

John H. Kerr v. National Endowment for the Arts
726 F.2d 730 (Federal Circuit, 1984)
Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Bd.
582 U.S. 420 (Supreme Court, 2017)
Le'China Spivey v. Department of Justice
2022 MSPB 24 (Merit Systems Protection Board, 2022)
Cory Owens v. Department of Homeland Security
2023 MSPB 7 (Merit Systems Protection Board, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Tonya R Mosley v. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tonya-r-mosley-v-department-of-housing-and-urban-development-mspb-2024.