29 C.F.R. § 1614.303

Petitions to the EEOC from MSPB decisions on mixed case appeals and complaints

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Who may file. Individuals who have received a final decision from the MSPB on a mixed case appeal or on the appeal of a final decision on a mixed case complaint under 5 CFR part 1201, subpart E and 5 U.S.C. 7702 may petition EEOC to consider that decision. The EEOC will not accept appeals from MSPB dismissals without prejudice.

(b) Method of filing. Filing shall be made by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013.

(c) Time to file. A petition must be filed with the Commission either within 30 days of receipt of the final decision of the MSPB or within 30 days of when the decision of a MSPB field office becomes final.

(d) Service. The petition for review must be served upon all individuals and parties on the MSPB's service list by certified mail on or before the filing with the Commission, and the Clerk of the Board, MSPB, 1615 M Street, NW., Washington, DC 20419, and the petitioner must certify as to the date and method of service.

[74 FR 3430, Jan. 21, 2009, as amended at 77 FR 51470, Aug. 24, 2012]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 24 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Bd.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Bd. (2017) scotus “161 ; 29 C.F.R. § 1614.303 ). Section 7703(b) designates the proper forum for judicial review of MSPB decisions.”

Kloeckner v. Solis (2012) scotus “161 ; 29 CFR §1614.303 . The question in this case concerns where that judicial review should take place.”

Lawrence Niskey v. John F. Kelly (2017) cadc “175; 29 C.F.R. § 1614.303 (a). B Congress required federal employees to exhaust discrimination claims “to give federal agencies an opportunity to handle matters internally whenever possible,” and to impose on employing agencies “the opportunity as well as the responsibility to…”

Sloan v. West (1998) ca9 · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. § 1614.303 (a) (1997); 5 C.F.R.”

Robert K. Oja v. Department of the Army (2005) cafc “Oja’s petition was governed by 29 C.F.R. § 1614.303 (EEOC regulation concerning petitions to the EEOC from MSPB decisions on mixed cases and appeals), which is grounded on 5 U.”

Leslie Kerr v. Sally Jewell (2016) ca9 “161 ; 29 CFR § 1614.303 . Kloeckner, 133 S.Ct. at 601 .”

Conforto v. Merit Systems Protection Board (2013) cafc “§§ 7702 (a)(3), 7703(b)(2); see 29 C.F.R. 1614.303–310. That much is clear from the statutes and regulations pertaining to mixed case ap- peals.”

Harms v. Internal Revenue Service (2003) ca10 “29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.303 , 1614.310; Sloan V.”

Romero-Ostolaza v. Ridge (2005) dcd “Plaintiffs earlier complaints were filed under his union’s bargaining process while his termination complaint was filed under the statutory process. Having elected to pursue the termination complaint under the statutory process, plaintiff had to proceed thoroughly under the…”

Stoll v. Principi (2006) ca1 “161 ; 29 C.F.R. § 1614.303 (a). Here, however, the appellant never pursued this possibility.”

Darvishian v. Geren (2010) ca4 “See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.303 et seq. After receiving the EEOC decision, Darvishian filed the present action in the district court.”

Dossa v. Wynne (2008) ca10 “3 (citing 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.303 , 1614.310). 3 . Section 7703(b)(2) also authorizes judicial review of discrimination claims based on the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.”

Show all 24 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.