Burroughs v. Department of the Army

2 Citing cases

  1. Burroughs v. Dep't of the Army

    559 F. App'x 1002 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

    Indeed, nothing in the letter demonstrates that Mr. Burroughs's complaint with the Office of Special Counsel involved the selection process for the position of Lead Aerospace Engineer at the Corpus Christi, Texas, Army Depot in 2004, as opposed to one of the numerous other applicant selection processes he has challenged. See Burroughs v. Dep't of Army, 524 F. App'x. 611 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (MSPB No. 2012-3195); Burroughs v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 417 F. App'x. 964 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (MSPB No. 2010-3180); Burroughs v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 426 F. App'x. 897 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (MSPB No. 2011-3021); Burroughs v. Dep't of Army, 428 F. App'x. 998 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (MSPB No. 2011-3187); Burroughs v. Dep't of Army, 445 F. App'x. 347 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (MSPB no. 2011-3118); Burroughs v. Dep't of Army, 446 F. App'x. 278 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (case no. 2011-3141); Burroughs v. Dep't of Army, 446 F. App'x. 293 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (MSPB no. 2011-3119). Thus, substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that Mr. Burroughs did not exhaust his administrative remedies.

  2. Maine v. Azar

    Civil Action GLR-16-3788 (D. Md. Aug. 16, 2021)   Cited 10 times

    First, although the vacancy was not announced with veterans' preference, it was lawfully advertised under the Agency's direct hire authority and merit promotion procedures. (See 2014 Job Posting, ECF No. 12-5); see also Burroughs v. Dep't of Army, 446 Fed.Appx. 278, 281-82 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (affirming that agency does not violate veterans' preference laws by issuing a vacancy announcement under merit promotion procedures). Accordingly, Maine was not entitled to any additional preference, and HHS's failure to utilize the veterans' preference procedure does not constitute evidence of pretext.