Eck v. United States Postal Service

1 Citing case

  1. Marro v. Nicholson

    No. 06-CV-6644 (JFB) (ARL) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2008)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that “employees that generally misuse computer are [not] similarly situated to those who use a computer in connection with sexually explicit or pornographic material”

    "The scope of our review in an appeal from a decision of the Board is limited." Eck v. U.S. Postal Serv., No. 2007-3303, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 749, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 14, 2008); see also Dey v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n, No. 2007-3308, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 750, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 14, 2008) ("Our scope of review in an appeal from a decision of the Board is limited."); Murray, 821 F. Supp. at 108 ("[J]udicial review of MSPB decisions that do not involving [sic] discrimination claims is `narrowly confined' and based exclusively on the administrative record.") (quoting Fineman v. U.S. Postal Serv., 555 F. Supp. 1336, 1341 (S.D.N.Y. 1983)). Specifically, "[l]ike its counterpart in the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), the arbitrary and capricious standard is extremely narrow, and allows the Board wide latitude in fulfilling its obligation to review agency disciplinary actions. It is not for the [court] to substitute its own judgment for that of the Board.