Clark v. Merit Systems Protection Board
679 F. App'x 1006
Fed. Cir.2017Background
- Dannice Clark, a USPS employee, sought restoration to duty after partial recovery from a work-related injury (April–August 2015).
- An MSPB Administrative Judge ordered both parties to file evidence supporting MSPB jurisdiction over the restoration claim within 15 days.
- Neither Clark nor USPS filed the requested jurisdictional submissions before the record closed; the AJ dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction for failure to plead nonfrivolous allegations.
- The MSPB affirmed, finding Clark did not make nonfrivolous allegations—particularly failing to show USPS’s denial was arbitrary and capricious or identify specific CBA provisions violated.
- Clark challenged the dismissal and also argued the AJ’s deadlines and discovery scheduling prevented meaningful response; the Federal Circuit affirmed the MSPB decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MSPB had jurisdiction over Clark’s restoration claim (nonfrivolous pleading requirement) | Clark argued her complaint and four factual statements (worked 5 hours then sent home; denial of reasonable accommodation; CBA violated; union corroboration) suffice as nonfrivolous allegations. | MSPB/USPS argued Clark’s allegations were conclusory, lacked factual specificity (no available position identified, no explanation of arbitrary/capricious denial, no CBA provisions identified in the complaint). | Held: MSPB lacked jurisdiction; Clark failed to plead nonfrivolous allegations, especially on arbitrary and capricious element. |
| Whether MSPB erred in denying good-cause for untimely jurisdictional filings | Clark contended mitigating factors (counsel workload, holidays, family death, communications about seeking more time) justified late filing. | MSPB/USPS argued counsel knew deadlines, record closed before any motion was filed, and Clark did not show excusable delay or new material evidence. | Held: Substantial evidence supports MSPB’s finding of no good cause; denial affirmed. |
| Whether AJ’s timing prevented Clark from exercising discovery rights | Clark claimed the AJ cut off jurisdictional filing before discovery deadlines, blocking meaningful discovery. | MSPB/USPS argued jurisdiction is threshold; AJ correctly prioritized jurisdictional determination before discovery and Clark failed to pursue discovery in time. | Held: MSPB properly required resolving jurisdiction first; Clark’s failure to use discovery opportunity was not reversible error. |
| Standard of review for MSPB jurisdictional and procedural rulings | Clark implicitly argued factual inferences should favor her submissions. | MSPB/USPS noted legal questions reviewed de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. | Held: Court applied de novo review to jurisdictional law and substantial-evidence review to factual findings; MSPB’s conclusions sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bledsoe v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 659 F.3d 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (partially recovered employees lack unconditional restoration rights; nonfrivolous pleading requirement)
- Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197 (Sup. Ct. 1938) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Parrott v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 519 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (review standards: de novo for jurisdictional questions, substantial evidence for factual findings)
- Azarkhish v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 915 F.2d 675 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (upholding AJ dismissal where petitioner failed to justify untimely filing)
- James v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 372 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (strict adherence to filing/timing rules)
- Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106 (Sup. Ct. 1976) (appellate courts generally do not consider issues not passed upon below)