Marsha L. Payton v. Department of Homeland Security
Background
- Marsha L. Payton (appellant), a former DHS employee, repeatedly alleged the agency failed to restore her to duty after a compensable injury she suffered in September 2003.
- Payton was removed on September 15, 2004 for misconduct in part unrelated to the compensable injury; she previously appealed restoration claims and the Board dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- Prior Board decisions and subsequent Federal Circuit affirmances found she failed to show separation due to a compensable injury, resolving the same jurisdictional question earlier.
- In the present appeal Payton again asserted improper refusal to restore her to duty; the agency moved to dismiss based on res judicata/collateral estoppel.
- The administrative judge, on the written record, found the jurisdictional issue identical to prior litigation, actually litigated, necessary to prior judgments, and fully litigated by Payton, and dismissed the appeal as barred by collateral estoppel.
- The Board denied Payton’s petition for review, affirming the administrative judge’s dismissal and advising of federal-court review rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Payton may relitigate the Board’s jurisdiction over her restoration claim | Payton contends the agency improperly failed to restore her after a compensable injury | DHS argues the jurisdictional issue was already decided; claim is precluded by res judicata/collateral estoppel | Dismissal affirmed: collateral estoppel bars relitigation of the identical jurisdictional issue |
| Whether prior adjudications satisfied collateral estoppel elements | Payton did not present a new basis to avoid preclusion | DHS asserted prior decisions were actually litigated and necessary to judgment and Payton had full opportunity to litigate | Board held prior adjudications met identity, actual litigation, necessity, and full representation elements |
| Whether the appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction instead of on preclusion grounds | Payton previously had appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction | DHS relied on those jurisdictional dismissals to support preclusion | Board concluded the prior jurisdictional rulings foreclose the present claim under collateral estoppel |
| Whether the Board should consider additional pleadings filed after the record closed | Payton submitted extra pleadings post‑record | DHS implicitly opposed additional filings without leave | Board rejected the additional pleadings as untimely and not authorized by the rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 (preclusion relieves parties and conserves resources)
- Kroeger v. U.S. Postal Service, 865 F.2d 235 (elements of collateral estoppel)
- Peartree v. U.S. Postal Service, 66 M.S.P.R. 332 (policy and application of issue preclusion in MSPB context)
- Fisher v. Department of Defense, 64 M.S.P.R. 509 (full and fair opportunity to litigate satisfies representation requirement)
- Noble v. U.S. Postal Service, 93 M.S.P.R. 693 (application of collateral estoppel principles)
- Pinat v. Office of Personnel Management, 931 F.2d 1544 (importance of timely filing for Federal Circuit review)