Cecilia Catherine Gutierrez v. Department of the Navy
Background
- Appellant Cecilia Gutierrez was removed from her Ordinary Seaman position effective Jan 30, 2015 for failing to maintain a regular work schedule; she appealed to the MSPB.
- The parties executed a December 15, 2015 settlement: agency would replace the SF-50 documenting removal with a revised SF-50 stating removal was due to inability to maintain schedule because of a medical condition; appellant would withdraw her Board appeal and EEO complaints with prejudice and not initiate related claims.
- The administrative judge accepted the settlement and dismissed the appeal in a Dec. 31, 2015 initial decision, which became final Feb. 4, 2016.
- Appellant filed a petition for enforcement (Feb. 20, 2016) claiming she had not received a revised SF-50; the agency said it provided the revised SF-50 on Feb. 18, 2016 (and later produced declarations stating unredacted copies were mailed Feb. 26, 2016 and Nov. 17, 2016).
- The administrative judge denied enforcement on July 6, 2016, finding agency compliance; the Board denied appellant’s petition for review, concluding the agency provided the unredacted revised SF-50 and that claims predating the settlement (reasonable accommodation, retirement, workers’ comp) are outside this compliance proceeding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the agency complied with the settlement by providing the revised SF-50 | Gutierrez: agency sent only a redacted SF-50 by email and not the requested unredacted hard copy | Navy: agency produced the corrected SF-50 and mailed unredacted copies; provided declarations of mailing | Held: Agency complied; unredacted SF-50 was provided as required |
| Timeliness and estoppel as to appellant’s petition for review | Gutierrez: sought review of compliance decision within allowed time | Navy: argued petitioner’s filing was an untimely challenge to the Dec. 31, 2015 decision and that appellant is estopped | Held: Board rejected agency’s timeliness/estoppel arguments; appellant’s petition for review of the July 6, 2016 compliance decision was timely |
| Whether Board should disturb initial decision based on appellant’s claims about lack of accommodation and entitlement to retirement/workers’ comp | Gutierrez: agency failed to inform her of right to request accommodation; seeks approval of medical retirement and workers’ compensation | Navy: such claims relate to pre‑settlement employment matters and are not part of compliance enforcement | Held: Claims are unrelated to enforcement of the settlement and do not provide a basis to disturb the compliance decision |
| Whether appellant may challenge validity of the settlement in this enforcement proceeding | Gutierrez: implied challenge based on alleged misinformation and pre‑settlement issues | Navy: settlement was lawful and voluntary; enforcement proceeding limited to compliance | Held: Challenges to settlement validity must be raised in a petition for review of the initial decision dismissing the appeal as settled, not in a petition for enforcement |
Key Cases Cited
- Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (court strictly enforces statutory filing deadlines for appeals)
- Hazelton v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 112 M.S.P.R. 357 (M.S.P.B. 2009) (challenge to settlement validity belongs in petition for review, not enforcement)
- Bruhn v. Department of Agriculture, 124 M.S.P.R. 1 (M.S.P.B. 2016) (party may challenge settlement as unlawful, involuntary, or resulting from fraud or mutual mistake)