Jennings v. Merit Systems Protection Bd.

7 Citing cases

  1. Hill v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.

    595 F. App'x 995 (Fed. Cir. 2015)

    "We may hold unlawful and set aside any agency action, findings, or conclusions found to be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or unlawful; procedurally deficient; or unsupported by substantial evidence." Jennings v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 59 F.3d 159, 160 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Under 5 U.S.C. ยง 7512 a federal employee is provided the right to Board review of a suspension for more than fourteen days.

  2. Montgomery v. Donahoe

    602 F. App'x 638 (7th Cir. 2015)   Cited 11 times
    Finding that Plaintiff abandoned any claim that her termination was discriminatory by not raising that claim before the MSPB

    Because she was not discharged for another three months, the emergency placement in off-duty status was an action appealable to the MSPB because it was an unpaid suspension lasting more than 14 days. See Jennings v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd, 59 F.3d 159, 160-61 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (discussing emergency placement in off-duty status of postal employee as a suspension that would invoke MSPB jurisdiction if sufficiently lengthy). When a federal employee first files a mixed case complaint with her employer (instead of with the MSPB), she has elected to proceed exclusively in that forum.

  3. Fields v. Department of Justice

    452 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 47 times

    Board jurisdiction generally does not extend to suspension of 14 days or less. See 5 U.S.C. ยง 7512(2) (2000); Jennings v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 59 F.3d 159, 160 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Notwithstanding the limitations of ยง 7512(2), and to promote the elimination of wrongdoing and mismanagement in government, Congress has provided federal employees with the right to seek corrective action from the Board whenever a personnel action has been taken in retaliation for certain whistleblowing activities. 5 U.S.C. ยง 1221(a) (2000) ("Subject to provisions of subsection (b) of this section and subsection 1214(a)(3), an employee . . . may, with respect to any personnel action taken . . . as a result of prohibited personnel practice described in section 2302(b)(8), seek corrective action from the [Board].").

  4. Haddon v. Executive Res. at White House

    313 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that internal investigation involving paid administrative leave and suspension of White House pass did not qualify as adverse employment actions

    Under the law applicable to most federal employees, only a suspension of greater than fourteen days qualifies as an adverse employment action entitling the employee to petition the MSPB for review. See 5 U.S.C. ยง 7512 (2000); Jennings v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 59 F.3d 159, 160 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Although these rules apply to employees in the competitive service and do not cover Mr. Haddon as a presidential appointee, it would make little sense to treat escorting Mr. Haddon from the White House and suspending his pass for two days as an adverse employment action when, under MSPB law, a suspension without pay of up to fourteen days is not. This analogy further supports our conclusion that the action at issue in this case did not qualify as an adverse employment action, and the EEOC erred in affirming the AJ's decision that it was an actionable retaliatory act.

  5. Clark v. Murphy

    No. 5:14-CV-565-FL (E.D.N.C. Jun. 2, 2016)   Cited 4 times
    Granting summary judgment to defendant, based upon review "limited to the administrative record that was available to the [Army Board of Correction] at the time of its decision"

    "Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Jennings v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 59 F.3d 159, 160 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In reviewing for substantial evidence, the court is not to "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo."

  6. Ugarte v. Johnson

    40 F. Supp. 2d 178 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)   Cited 17 times
    Noting that an affirmation improperly contained "factual information not based on personal knowledge and legal argument"

    (Although plaintiff claims to have suffered a reduction in grade, the official documentary records show a suspension of seven days and no reduction in grade or pay.) A suspension of fewer than 14 days or other action not affecting grade or pay is not subject to MSPB and Federal Circuit review under the statute. See Walker v. Department of the Navy, 106 F.3d 1582, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Jennings v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 59 F.3d 159, 160 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Broadway v. Block, 694 F.2d 979, 982 (5th Cir. 1982). However, where such a lesser action is taken but is alleged to have been, inter alia, in retaliation for whistleblowing, the Office of Special Counsel is authorized and required to investigate.

  7. Joslyn v. U.S.

    No. 08-925 C (Fed. Cl. Dec. 2, 2009)   Cited 3 times

    Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Id.; see also Jennings v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 59 F.3d 159, 160 (Fed. Cir. 1995); Heisig, 719 F.2d at 1156. To prevail under the arbitrary and capricious standard, plaintiff must demonstrate that evidence was ignored or unreasonably construed, or that designated duties were not performed by the military disability evaluation board.