                           UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                        MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD


     WILLIAM A. EPPS,                                DOCKET NUMBER
                   Appellant,                        DC-0752-15-0654-I-1

                  v.

     DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,                     DATE: June 24, 2016
                 Agency.




             THIS FINAL ORDER IS NONPRECEDENTIAL 1

           Shaun Southworth, Esquire, Atlanta, Georgia, for the appellant.

           Gregg Avitabile, Esquire, Washington, D.C., for the agency.


                                           BEFORE

                              Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman
                                 Mark A. Robbins, Member



                                       FINAL ORDER

¶1         The appellant has petitioned for review of the September 18, 2015 initial
     decision in this appeal. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 9, Initial Decision; Petition




     1
        A nonprecedential order is one that the Board has determined does not add
     significantly to the body of MSPB case law. Parties may cite nonprecedential orders,
     but such orders have no precedential value; the Board and administrative judges are not
     required to follow or distinguish them in any future decisions. In contrast, a
     precedential decision issued as an Opinion and Order has been identified by the Board
     as significantly contributing to the Board’s case law. See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.117(c).
                                                                                         2

     for Review (PFR) File, Tab 1. For the reasons set forth below, we DISMISS the
     petition for review as settled.
¶2         After the filing of the petition for review, the parties submitted a document
     entitled “CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT” signed and dated by
     the appellant on February 18, 2016, and by the agency on February 19, 2016.
     PFR File, Tab 4. The document provides, among other things, for the dismissal
     of the petition for review. Id., ¶ 2(a).
¶3         Before dismissing a matter as settled, the Board must decide whether the
     parties have entered into a settlement agreement, understand its terms, and intend
     to have the agreement entered into the record for enforcement by the Board. See
     Mahoney v. U.S. Postal Service, 37 M.S.P.R. 146, 149 (1988). We find here that
     the parties have, in fact, entered into a settlement agreement, that they understand
     the terms, and that they want the Board to enforce those terms. See PFR File,
     Tab 4, ¶ 10(a).
¶4         In addition, before accepting a settlement agreement into the record for
     enforcement purposes, the Board must determine whether the agreement is lawful
     on its face, whether the parties freely entered into it, and whether the subject
     matter of this appeal is within the Board’s jurisdiction; that is, whether a law,
     rule, or regulation grants the Board the authority to decide such a matter. See
     Stewart v. U.S. Postal Service, 73 M.S.P.R. 104, 107 (1997). We find here that
     the agreement is lawful on its face, that the parties freely entered into it, and that
     the subject matter of this appeal—the removal of a permanent Federal employee
     in the competitive service—is within the Board’s jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C.
     § 7701 and 5 C.F.R. § 752.405. IAF, Tab 1 at 15-18. Accordingly, we find that
     dismissal of the petition for review “with prejudice to refiling” (i.e., the parties
     normally may not refile this appeal) is appropriate under these circumstances, and
     we accept the settlement agreement into the record for enforcement purposes.
                                                                                         3

¶5        This is the final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board in this appeal.
     Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 1201.113 (5 C.F.R.
     § 1201.113).

                         NOTICE TO THE PARTIES OF THEIR
                             ENFORCEMENT RIGHTS
           If the agency or the appellant has not fully carried out the terms of the
     agreement, either party may ask the Board to enforce the settlement agreement by
     promptly filing a petition for enforcement with the office that issued the initial
     decision on this appeal. The petition should contain specific reasons why the
     petitioning party believes that the terms of the settlement agreement have not
     been fully carried out, and should include the dates and results of any
     communications between the parties. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.182(a).

                     NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT REGARDING
                        YOUR FURTHER REVIEW RIGHTS 2
           You have the right to request further review of this final decision.

     Discrimination Claims: Administrative Review
           You may request review of this final decision on your discrimination
     claims by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). See title 5
     of the U.S. Code, section 7702(b)(1) (5 U.S.C. § 7702(b)(1)). If you submit your
     request by regular U.S. mail, the address of the EEOC is:
                               Office of Federal Operations
                        Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
                                     P.O. Box 77960
                                Washington, D.C. 20013



     2
       The administrative judge afforded the appellant nonmixed-case review rights.
     However, the appellant’s appeal is a mixed case because it involves both an appealable
     matter and a claim of discrimination. See Conforto v. Merit Systems Protection Board,
     713 F.3d 1111, 1118 (2013). We have provided the appellant the proper review rights
     here.
                                                                                 4

If you submit your request via commercial delivery or by a method requiring a
signature, it must be addressed to:
                           Office of Federal Operations
                    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
                                131 M Street, NE
                                  Suite 5SW12G
                            Washington, D.C. 20507

        You should send your request to EEOC no later than 30 calendar days after
your receipt of this order. If you have a representative in this case, and your
representative receives this order before you do, then you must file with EEOC no
later than 30 calendar days after receipt by your representative. If you choose to
file, be very careful to file on time.

Discrimination and Other Claims: Judicial Action
        If you do not request EEOC to review this final decision on your
discrimination claims, you may file a civil action against the agency on both your
discrimination claims and your other claims in an appropriate U.S. district court.
See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2). You must file your civil action with the district court
no later than 30 calendar days after your receipt of this order. If you have a
representative in this case, and your representative receives this order before you
do, then you must file with the district court no later than 30 calendar days after
receipt by your representative. If you choose to file, be very careful to file on
time.    If the action involves a claim of discrimination based on race, color,
religion, sex, national origin, or a disabling condition, you may be entitled to
representation by a court-appointed lawyer and to waiver of any requirement of
                                                                            5

prepayment of fees, costs, or other security.   See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) and
29 U.S.C. § 794a.




FOR THE BOARD:                         ______________________________
                                       William D. Spencer
                                       Clerk of the Board
Washington, D.C.
