Casanova Hambrick v. United States Postal Service
Background
- Appellant Casanova Hambrick appealed his February 11, 2014 removal by USPS; while appeal was pending he voluntarily retired and the parties settled on November 6, 2014.
- The administrative judge dismissed the appeal as settled and placed the settlement agreement on the record for enforcement.
- Hambrick later filed a petition for enforcement (Sept. 21, 2015) alleging miscalculated gross back pay, improper deductions, and incorrect TSP fund deposits; the AJ found the agency in compliance on Oct. 21, 2015.
- Hambrick sought review and raised additional noncompliance allegations; the Board denied review and treated new allegations as a new petition for enforcement; the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board on appeal.
- A second petition for enforcement was denied by the AJ (June 8, 2016); Hambrick does not dispute current compliance but seeks compensatory damages for delay and alleges violations of 5 C.F.R. § 550.805 and ELM § 651.4.
- The Board denied the petition for review, holding (1) it lacks authority to award damages for a breached settlement agreement, (2) back-pay calculation issues were precluded by res judicata, and (3) the ELM claim was irrelevant to settlement-compliance review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board may award compensatory damages for agency delay in complying with settlement | Hambrick: entitled to compensatory damages for delay | USPS: Board has no authority to award such damages under MSPB enforcement | Denied — Board lacks authority to award damages for breach of settlement (Principe) |
| Whether back-pay calculations remain open for relitigation | Hambrick: agency miscalculated back pay and owes more | USPS: back-pay issues were previously litigated and resolved | Denied — res judicata bars relitigation of back-pay calculation (Senyszyn) |
| Whether agency violated 5 C.F.R. § 550.805 in processing back pay | Hambrick: alleged noncompliance with back-pay regulation | USPS: compliance demonstrated for issues raised | Denied — appellant concedes compliance; no basis to disturb AJ decision |
| Whether alleged violation of ELM § 651.4 is relevant to enforcement | Hambrick: agency violated ELM emergency off-duty placement rules | USPS: ELM claim unrelated to settlement-compliance proceeding | Denied — ELM claim irrelevant to enforcement of settlement agreement |
Key Cases Cited
- Principe v. U.S. Postal Service, 101 M.S.P.R. 626 (2006) (Board lacks authority to award damages for breach of a settlement agreement)
- Senyszyn v. Department of the Treasury, 113 M.S.P.R. 453 (2010) (application of res judicata to bar relitigation of previously decided back-pay claims)
- Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (courts generally will not waive the statutory filing deadline for appeals)