Esparraguera v. Dep't of Army

3 Citing cases

  1. Esparraguera v. Dep't of the Army

    101 F.4th 28 (D.C. Cir. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    Esparraguera initially appealed the MSPB order to the Federal Circuit, but that court dismissed her suit for lack of jurisdiction. Esparraguera v. Dep't of the Army, 981 F.3d 1328, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Esparraguera then filed suit in district court.

  2. Esparraguera v. Dep't of the Army

    Civil Action 21-421 (TJK) (D.D.C. Mar. 24, 2022)   Cited 4 times

    (cleaned up). The Senior Executive Service (“SES”) is a division of “high-level” federal employees who wield “significant responsibility- including directing organizational units, supervising work, and determining policy.” Esparraguera v. Dep't of the Army, 981 F.3d 1328, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The SES “enable[s] the head of an agency to reassign senior executives to best accomplish the agency's mission” and lead the agency in a way that is “consistent with the effective and efficient implementation of agency policies and responsibilities.” 5 U.S.C. § 3131(5), (14).

  3. Feds for Med. Freedom v. Biden

    581 F. Supp. 3d 826 (S.D. Tex. 2022)   Cited 21 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Issuing nationwide injunction on enforcement of Employee Mandate

    Indeed, neither the Merit Systems Protection Board (the administrative body charged with implementing the CSRA) nor the Federal Circuit (which hears CSRA appeals) has jurisdiction until there is an actual adverse employment action.Esparraguera v. Dep't of the Army , 981 F.3d 1328, 1337–38 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The government relies on two Fifth Circuit cases as support for its contention that the CSRA applies to the plaintiffs’ claims in this case.