Dietrich Ann Thomas v. Department of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
DIETRICH ANN THOMAS,
Petitioner
v.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent
______________________
2025-1013
______________________
Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection
Board in No. AT-0752-20-0489-I-1.
______________________
Decided: May 7, 2026
______________________
D IETRICH T HOMAS , New Orleans, LA, pro se.
STEPHANIE F LEMING, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by T ARA K.
HOGAN, P ATRICIA M. MCCARTHY , BRETT SHUMATE.
______________________
Before L OURIE, P ROST , and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Case: 25-1013 Document: 48 Page: 1 Filed: 05/07/2026

-- 1 of 4 --

THOMAS v. DVA 2
Dietrich A. Thomas petitions for review of a final deci-
sion of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) de-
clining to set aside the settlement agreement between
Ms. Thomas and the Department of Veterans Affairs
(“VA”). S.A. 1–8.1 For the reasons below, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Ms. Thomas was removed from her position as a medi-
cal instrument technician for the Gulf Coast Veterans
Health Care System in Biloxi, Mississippi. Ms. Thomas
appealed her removal to the Board. While the appeal was
pending, Ms. Thomas—represented by counsel—entered
into a settlement agreement with the VA. The agreement
provided that Ms. Thomas “voluntarily waives, withdraws,
and forever discharges the [VA] from any and all actions,
claims, complaints, [Board] appeals, [Equal Employment
Opportunity] complaints, grievances, appeals, proceedings,
and court actions, of whatever nature and in any stage of
processing and in any forum, filed against the [VA].”
S.A. 19 ¶ 1.
Ms. Thomas then moved to dismiss her appeal as set-
tled. The administrative judge (“AJ”) reviewed the agree-
ment, determined it was “lawful on its face, that the parties
freely entered into it, and that they understand its terms,”
S.A. 9, and dismissed her appeal.
Ms. Thomas filed a petition for Board review of the AJ’s
initial decision. For the first time, she requested that the
settlement agreement not be enforced because (1) the VA,
her counsel, the presiding AJ, and the chief AJ conspired
against her and made disparaging remarks concerning her
gender, race, and disability; and (2) she was coerced into
signing the agreement. The Board denied her petition and
affirmed the AJ’s initial decision. The Board reasoned that
1 “S.A.” refers to the supplemental appendix in-
cluded with the VA’s informal response brief.
Case: 25-1013 Document: 48 Page: 2 Filed: 05/07/2026

-- 2 of 4 --

THOMAS v. DVA 3
Ms. Thomas “has provided no evidence of the alleged con-
spiracy, and she has not explained why she did not object
to the alleged statements by the chief [AJ] or otherwise
complain of fraud or coercion during the proceedings be-
low.” S.A. 2.
Ms. Thomas timely petitioned this court for review of
the Board’s decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(9).
D ISCUSSION
We review a Board decision for whether it is “(1) arbi-
trary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not
in accordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures re-
quired by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or
(3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(c).
Ms. Thomas argues that (1) the settlement agreement
“was not voluntary, but was obtained under coercion and
fraud”; (2) the Board applied the wrong legal standard for
voluntariness of settlement agreements; (3) her counsel
“misrepresented the terms” of the agreement; and (4) the
AJ “exerted undue pressure.” Pet’r’s Informal Br. 2. Be-
cause Ms. Thomas first questioned the voluntariness and
validity of the settlement agreement in her petition for re-
view, she has forfeited those arguments. Bosley v. MSPB,
162 F.3d 665, 668 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[I]f the party fails to
raise an issue in the administrative proceeding or raises an
issue for the first time in a petition for review by the full
Board, this court will not consider the issue.”).
However, even if she had timely raised her arguments,
they are unpersuasive. A petitioner challenging the valid-
ity of a settlement agreement bears a “heavy burden” of
proof that the agreement is improper. Asberry v. USPS,
692 F.2d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1982). On this record,
Ms. Thomas has not met that burden.
Case: 25-1013 Document: 48 Page: 3 Filed: 05/07/2026

-- 3 of 4 --

THOMAS v. DVA 4
At best, Ms. Thomas’s allegations are conclusory and
perfunctory. For example, Ms. Thomas does not provide,
and the record does not otherwise indicate, evidence to sup-
port her allegations of coercion. “A bare allegation of coer-
cion is not sufficient to set aside the parties’ settlement
agreement.” Tiburzi v. DOJ, 269 F.3d 1346, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
2001). Moreover, Ms. Thomas was represented by counsel
throughout the negotiation of the agreement, and in fact,
she moved to dismiss her appeal after the agreement was
entered.
CONCLUSION
We have considered Ms. Thomas’s remaining argu-
ments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing rea-
sons, we affirm.
AFFIRMED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1013 Document: 48 Page: 4 Filed: 05/07/2026

-- 4 of 4 --