Kelvin Ricky Watson, Jr v. Social Security Administration
Background
- Appellant Kelvin R. Watson, Jr. appealed an agency action to the Merit Systems Protection Board; an Initial Decision issued May 13, 2016.
- The appellant filed a petition for review.
- After filing the petition, the parties executed a signed Settlement Agreement (Aug. 15–16, 2016) that provided for dismissal of the petition and stated the agreement would not be entered into the record for Board enforcement.
- The Board reviewed whether a valid settlement exists and whether the parties understood its terms and intended the Board to enforce it, as required by Board precedent.
- The Board found a settlement had been reached, that the parties understood its terms, and that they agreed the agreement should not be placed on the record for Board enforcement.
- The Board dismissed the petition for review with prejudice and advised the appellant of appeal rights to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (60-day deadline) and of whistleblower-related appeal rights omitted from the Initial Decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parties entered a valid settlement | Watson executed settlement and sought dismissal | SSA executed settlement agreeing to dismissal | Board found a valid settlement was executed |
| Whether parties understood settlement terms | Watson knowingly signed and accepted terms | SSA knowingly signed and accepted terms | Board found both parties understood the terms |
| Whether parties intended Board enforcement / to place agreement on record | Watson agreed the agreement need not be on the record for enforcement | SSA agreed it should not be on the record for enforcement | Board accepted parties’ agreement not to place settlement on record for enforcement |
| Appropriateness of dismissal with prejudice | Watson consented to dismissal per settlement | SSA consented to dismissal per settlement | Board dismissed petition with prejudice as appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Mahoney v. U.S. Postal Service, 37 M.S.P.R. 146 (1988) (Board must determine existence, understanding, and intent re: settlement before dismissing as settled)
- Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (1991) (courts generally cannot waive the statutory filing deadline for appeals)