Payton v. Merit Systems Protection Board
678 F. App'x 1026
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Marsha L. Payton was removed from her DHS position in 2004 for five misconduct charges; the MSPB and this court upheld the removal in earlier proceedings.
- Payton had an employment-related, compensable injury in 2003 and contends DHS failed to restore her to duty after a medical clearance.
- Payton previously litigated the restoration/jurisdiction issue before the MSPB and this court (including appeals resolved in 2010 and 2013), where the Board and this court found DHS’s removal was for cause unrelated to the compensable injury.
- On Feb. 12, 2016, Payton again appealed to the MSPB claiming DHS refused to restore her; the AJ issued an Order to Show Cause invoking collateral estoppel and lack of jurisdiction.
- The AJ and then the MSPB dismissed the appeal based on collateral estoppel, finding the jurisdictional issue identical to and already litigated in prior appeals.
- Payton appealed to the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the MSPB’s final order, rejecting Payton’s new arguments as waived and finding no abuse of discretion in applying collateral estoppel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MSPB has jurisdiction over Payton’s restoration claim | Payton: DHS wrongly failed to restore her after medical clearance | DHS: Removal was for cause unrelated to compensable injury; no jurisdiction | Collateral estoppel bars relitigation; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction affirmed |
| Whether collateral estoppel applies to bar Payton’s renewed restoration claim | Payton: Prior rulings do not preclude re-litigation | MSPB/DHS: Prior adjudications decided the identical jurisdictional issue | Court: All four collateral-estoppel factors satisfied; estoppel applies |
| Whether Payton may raise discrimination or merits arguments now | Payton: Asserts discrimination and merits of removal on appeal | MSPB/DHS: New issues were not raised before the AJ and are waived | Held: Arguments are waived and not considered on appeal |
| Whether MSPB abused its discretion applying collateral estoppel a second time | Payton: MSPB’s repeated reliance on estoppel is improper | MSPB: Prior final decisions required preclusive effect | Held: No abuse of discretion; affirmance appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Morgan v. Dep’t of Energy, 424 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (elements for applying collateral estoppel)
- Kachanis v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 212 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (issues not raised before the AJ are waived on appeal)
- Bosley v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 162 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (court will not consider issues not raised before the AJ)
- Payton v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., [citation="403 F. App'x 496"] (Fed. Cir. 2010) (prior appeal resolving jurisdictional issue over restoration claim)
- Payton v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., [citation="526 F. App'x 957"] (Fed. Cir. 2013) (prior decision applying collateral estoppel to Payton’s restoration claim)