Alma D. Chavez v. Department of Veterans Affairs
Background
- Appellant Alma D. Chavez prevailed in an individual right of action (IRA) appeal and the Board ordered corrective action including reinstatement and back pay.
- The agency did not meet the Board's reinstatement deadline but later restored Chavez to her position.
- Dispute arose over correct calculation and payment of back pay, interest, and offsets (including outside earnings); DFAS involvement caused delays and authoritative confusion.
- The administrative judge issued a compliance initial decision finding partial noncompliance (restoration achieved but incorrect/missing payments).
- The agency later produced detailed back pay and daily-compounded interest calculations showing $24,328.28 gross (adjusted back pay plus interest) and a final payment of $21,477.39 after offsets.
- The appellant did not contest the agency's final compliance documentation; she raised procedural fairness concerns and sought attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether agency complied with Board order to reinstate and pay back pay/interest | Chavez argued agency failed to reinstate within deadline and failed to pay proper back pay; sought enforcement and accountability | Agency acknowledged late reinstatement but said it ultimately reinstated and paid; asserted DFAS errors/delays explain payment issues and that it acted in good faith | Board found agency in partial noncompliance initially but, after agency produced detailed calculations and evidence, found agency in compliance and dismissed enforcement petition |
| Whether administrative judge handled compliance process fairly | Chavez alleged unfairness and inadequate case handling (no compliance date set; interference by HR chief) | Agency contended it followed procedures and provided required information; delays due to DFAS, not AJ error | Board rejected Chavez's fairness claims, finding AJ acted appropriately and issued noncompliance finding that led to the compliance docket |
| Whether agency's produced payments and interest calculations were adequate | Chavez contested deductions for outside earnings and requested attorney fees; she did not rebut the final calculations | Agency provided spreadsheets, narratives, and daily compounding interest computations; asserted offsets for outside earnings were proper | Board accepted agency's documentation; appellant failed to challenge it, so Board found agency in compliance |
| Entitlement to attorney fees and next steps | Chavez sought attorney fees | Agency did not concede fees; Board noted statutory/ regulatory process | Board advised appellant of right to file a motion for attorney fees within 60 days and of appeal rights to the Federal Circuit |
Key Cases Cited
- Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (court may not waive statutory filing deadline for appeals)