Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jose W. Linares Rosado v. Merit Systems Protection Board

May 6, 2011

JOSE W. LINARES ROSADO, PETITIONER,
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, RESPONDENT. JOSE W. LINARES ROSADO, PETITIONER,
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, RESPONDENT.



Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in NY3443080345-B-1. Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in NY3330080346-B-1.

Per curiam.

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

Before BRYSON, PLAGER, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

DECISION

In these two petitions for review of orders of the Merit Systems Protection Board, JoseLinares Rosado seeks review of the Board's decisions dismissing his appeals relating to his non-selection for a permanent position with the United States Postal Service. We affirm the Board's decision in each of the two cases.

BACKGROUND

Mr. Linares Rosado worked for the Postal Service for several years as a temporary employee. Following his separation in 2003, he served in the United States military. After leaving military service, he made several attempts to re-enter the Postal Service workforce. In May 2008, the agency extended him a tentative offer as a Part Time Flexible City Carrier. He was told that permanent employment with the Postal Service would be conditioned on his ability to meet the agency's medical suitability requirements for that position.

Mr. Linares Rosado was subsequently examined on two occasions by Dr. Luis A. Echevarria. In addition to examining Mr. Linares Rosado, Dr. Echevarria reviewed a report sent to the Postal Service by Dr. Marian Torres Medina of the Veterans Administration Healthcare System. Dr. Torres Medina stated that she scheduled an examination for Mr. Linares Rosado, but that when he did not show up for that appointment, she based her report on a review of the records of another physician who had examined him.

In July 2008, after reviewing the evaluation of Dr. Echevarria, the Postal Service informed Mr. Linares Rosado that he had been found medically unsuitable for the position of City Carrier based on a medical evaluation and a review of his medical records. The agency noted that the Office of Personnel Management ("OPM") would review that decision because Mr. Linares Rosado was a veteran with service-connected disabilities of at least 30 percent. See 5 C.F.R. § 339.306(b)(2). Mr. Linares Rosado was told that he could submit any relevant information to OPM within 15 days. He submitted additional information that he claimed would undermine the Postal Service's medical findings. Despite that new information, OPM rendered a final determination that Mr. Linares Rosado's "medical condition presents an unacceptable safety and health risk and is likely to adversely affect [his] ability to perform the full range of duties required for the position."

In August 2008, Mr. Linares Rosado filed an appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board arguing that the Postal Service had failed to comply with applicable laws and regulations when it chose not to hire him for a permanent mail carrier position. The Board docketed his appeal as three separate actions: (1) a challenge to the Postal Service's conclusion that he was medically unsuitable for the carrier position; (2) an allegation that the Postal Service had violated the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act ("VEOA"); and (3) an allegation that the Postal Service had violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act ("USERRA").

Before the Board issued any rulings in the related cases, Mr. Linares Rosado engaged in mediation with the Postal Service through the agency's Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") mediation program. In September 2008, the parties signed a settlement agreement under which Mr. Linares Rosado would be referred to the agency's Reasonable Accommodation Committee to present any medical evidence in support of his claim. Under the settlement agreement, he would be awarded back pay from May 2008 to the effective date of appointment to a career position with the agency if he was found to be physically and mentally fit for such a position. The settlement agreement purported to resolve the "pending MSPB appeal."

After receiving the settlement agreement, a Board administrative judge issued initial decisions summarily dismissing all three appeals as withdrawn. Over the next several months, Mr. Linares Rosado attempted to file several documents with the Board contesting the terms of the settlement agreement. The administrative judge refused to consider those documents because they were untimely filed.

In June 2009, the parties agreed to revoke and void the settlement agreement and recommence mediation under the EEO program. Mr. Linares Rosado then petitioned for Board rehearing of the dismissals of his appeals. In October 2009, the Board vacated and remanded the three decisions to the administrative judge after finding that Mr. Linares Rosado had "presented sufficient new evidence regarding whether a settlement agreement was ever reached to both excuse his late filing and support a request to reopen and reinstate his appeals."

In separate rulings on remand, the administrative judge again dismissed Mr. Linares Rosado's challenge to the Postal Service's medical unsuitability determination and his VEOA appeal.*fn1 The administrative judge concluded that the Board lacked jurisdiction over Mr. Linares Rosado's challenge to the Postal Service's medical unsuitability determination because the statute governing an agency's decision to pass over a preference eligible job applicant does not provide for a right of appeal to the Board. The administrative judge separately concluded that the Board lacked jurisdiction over any challenge brought by Mr. Linares Rosado under the VEOA, either because he had not exhausted his administrative remedies or because he had not raised ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.