Diane Horn-Cruder v. Department of Health and Human Services
Background
- Appellant Diane Horn-Cruder (pro se) was removed from a GS-11 Program Analyst position and appealed to the MSPB; the parties executed a settlement agreement dismissing that appeal and providing remedies (lump-sum payment, attorney fees, SF-50 changed to voluntary retirement, expungement of removal records).
- Appellant filed a first petition for enforcement asserting the agency failed to expunge a campus-ban letter; parties executed a second settlement resolving that compliance matter (agency lifted ban, paid fees, sent letter explaining the campus-ban letter was never in the official personnel file).
- Appellant submitted a second and then a third petition for enforcement, centered on a 57‑page document (an email attachment) and claims the agency acted in bad faith and violated her rights; the administrative judge found the agency complied with the prior settlements and dismissed the third petition as barred by res judicata.
- The AJ explained that challenges to the validity of a settlement entered into the Board’s record must be raised by petition for review of the initial decision that accepted the settlement, not by collateral compliance petitions.
- Appellant sought reinstatement and to relitigate the merits of her removal and discrimination/retaliation claims; the Board held it lacked jurisdiction to revisit the underlying removal once a settlement is part of the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the third petition for enforcement is barred by res judicata | Horn‑Cruder contends the agency acted in bad faith and seeks renegotiation/enforcement based on new concerns about documents and safety | Agency contends it complied with prior settlements and the third petition repeats claims already adjudicated; res judicata bars relitigation | Dismissed: res judicata bars the third petition because same parties, same cause, prior final judgments on the merits |
| Whether challenges to the validity of previously filed settlement agreements may be raised in a compliance petition | Horn‑Cruder argues the settlements are invalid for bad faith and false/misleading materials | Agency argues validity challenges must be raised via petition for review of the initial decision that accepted the settlement into the record | Held: Validity challenges must be raised by petition for review of the initial decision accepting the settlement; not properly raised in compliance appeals |
| Whether the Board may adjudicate the original removal/discrimination claims in a compliance proceeding | Horn‑Cruder seeks reinstatement and back pay, and alleges discrimination/retaliation | Agency and AJ assert that once a settlement is entered into the record the original appeal is withdrawn/dismissed and Board lacks jurisdiction | Held: Board lacks jurisdiction to revisit the merits of the removal or hear pendent discrimination claims after settlement entry into the record |
| Whether any new factual basis was presented to overcome preclusion | Horn‑Cruder alleges the 57‑page document and other facts create new grounds | Agency shows it addressed the specific items in prior settlements and no new breach was alleged | Held: No new claims, facts, or evidence sufficient to avoid res judicata; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Encarnado v. Office of Personnel Management, 116 M.S.P.R. 301 (M.S.P.R. 2011) (explains res judicata elements and preclusion of issues that were or could have been raised)
- Peartree v. U.S. Postal Service, 66 M.S.P.R. 332 (M.S.P.R. 1995) (res judicata bars relitigation of same cause between same parties)
- King v. Reid, 59 F.3d 1215 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (once a settlement is entered into the Board record the original appealable action is withdrawn/dismissed and the Board lacks jurisdiction over the underlying action)
- Weldon v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 119 M.S.P.R. 478 (M.S.P.R. 2013) (settlement‑validity challenges must be raised via petition for review of the initial decision accepting the settlement)
- Hazelton v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 112 M.S.P.R. 357 (M.S.P.R. 2009) (same principle: collateral attacks on settlements in compliance proceedings are improper)
- Walker‑King v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 119 M.S.P.R. 414 (M.S.P.R. 2013) (Board lacks jurisdiction to hear pendent discrimination claims in enforcement of a settlement)