Loretta Jean Alford v. Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind and Severe Handicaped
Background
- Appellant Loretta Jean Alford appealed her July 16, 2014 removal for AWOL, failure to follow supervisory instructions, and unauthorized use of Government property, and raised affirmative defenses including whistleblower reprisal, EEO activity, disability discrimination, and procedural error.
- The administrative judge issued an initial decision on November 13, 2014, affirming the removal and denying the affirmative defenses.
- Alford requested and was granted an extension to file a petition for review, with a deadline of January 20, 2015.
- She filed a petition for review on March 16, 2016—about 14 months late—and was instructed to move to waive the time limit or show good cause; her April 8, 2016 filing addressed merits but did not explain the delay.
- The Board applied its regulations on petition timeliness and the good-cause standard, found Alford did not show due diligence or circumstances beyond her control, and dismissed the petition as untimely.
- The Board also noted the administrative judge failed to give WPEA/mixed-case notice but held that error harmless because the Board provided the proper notice in the Final Order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of petition for review / Good-cause to waive 35-day limit | Alford sought review of the removal on merits (implicitly that review should be allowed); her filings did not explain the lateness. | Agency argued the petition was untimely and Alford failed to show good cause to waive the deadline. | Petition dismissed as untimely; Alford did not show good cause (no adequate excuse, delay ~14 months, had counsel assistance). |
| Failure to give WPEA/mixed-case notice | Alford could argue lack of proper notice of appeal rights under WPEA/mixed-case rules. | Agency (and Board) acknowledged error but treated it as not prejudicial because Board later provided notice. | Notice error was harmless; Board supplied correct notice in Final Order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marcantel v. Department of Energy, 121 M.S.P.R. 330 (Board 2014) (good-cause standard: due diligence/ordinary prudence inquiry)
- Alonzo v. Department of the Air Force, 4 M.S.P.R. 180 (1980) (standard for showing good cause for untimely filings)
- Lacy v. Department of the Navy, 78 M.S.P.R. 434 (1998) (illness or incapacity can support good cause when shown)
- Deville v. Government Printing Office, 93 M.S.P.R. 187 (2002) (dismissing untimely petitions where good cause not shown)
- Grimes v. U.S. Postal Service, 39 M.S.P.R. 183 (1988) (procedural notice errors may be harmless where corrective notice is provided)