Samara Simmons, a foreign service officer, engaged in a prolonged administrative grievance process regarding her 2016 employee evaluation and eligibility for tenure. After the Department of State initially denied her grievance, the Foreign Service Grievance Board issued a series of four orders between 2020 and 2023. These orders addressed the Department's voluntary offer of relief, a petition for attorney's fees, and motions to reassess the status of the grievance appeal. The Board eventually closed the case in September 2022 and issued an injunction in April 2023 barring further filings. Simmons filed a five-count complaint in district court in October 2023 challenging these Board orders. The district court dismissed counts I through IV as time-barred, ruling that the 180-day limitations period began in September 2022 and was only paused during the pendency of her December 2022 motion for reconsideration. The court also dismissed count V, which challenged the Board's injunction against further filings, finding Simmons lacked a right to submit such filings under Board rules.
The court addressed the statute of limitations issue under the Foreign Service Act, which requires judicial review petitions to be filed within 180 days of a final agency action. The government argued that the Supreme Court's decision in Artis v. District of Columbia redefined 'tolling' to mean only a pause in the clock, not a reset. The court rejected this, clarifying that Artis concerned a different statute and did not overrule the principle that a motion for reconsideration renders an order nonfinal. Citing Outland v. Civil Aeronautics Board and Stone v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, the court held that a timely motion for reconsideration prevents an order from becoming final until the motion is denied. Consequently, the 180-day period did not begin to run until the Board denied Simmons' motion for reconsideration on April 12, 2023. Since Simmons filed her complaint on October 10, 2023, within the 180-day window, her challenges to the earlier orders were timely. Regarding count V, the court affirmed the dismissal. The Board's regulations allow a 'prevailing employee' to file for attorney's fees within 30 days, but Simmons was not a prevailing party under Buckhannon principles. Furthermore, the regulations explicitly prohibit successive motions for reconsideration without prior permission, and the Board's denial of such requests is committed to agency discretion. The court also found no procedural due process violation, as the Board's injunction was self-explanatory given its prior reasoning that Simmons was not a prevailing party.
The decision clarifies that for Foreign Service grievances, the statute of limitations for judicial review resets upon the denial of a motion for reconsideration, rather than merely pausing. This allows employees to challenge earlier agency orders if they timely seek reconsideration. The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings on counts I through IV. The ruling leaves open the question of what constitutes a 'prevailing party' for attorney's fees in this context but confirms that the Board's docket control over successive motions is unreviewable.