C.F.R. » Title 5 » CHAPTER II—MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD › SUBCHAPTER A—ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURES › PART 1201—PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES › Subpart E—Procedures for Cases Involving Allegations of Discrimination

5 C.F.R. § 1201.162

Board action on the Commission decision; judicial review

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

(a) Board decision. Within 30 days after receipt of a decision of the Commission issued under 1201.161(c)(2), the Board shall consider the decision and:

(1) Concur and adopt in whole the decision of the Commission; or

(2) To the extent that the Board finds that, as a matter of law:

(i) The Commission decision is based on an incorrect interpretation of any provision of any civil service law, rule, regulation, or policy directive, or

(ii) The evidence in the record as a whole does not support the Commission decision involving that provision, it may reaffirm the decision of the Board. In doing so, it may make revisions in the decision that it determines are appropriate.

(b) Judicial review. If the Board concurs in or adopts the decision of the Commission under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the decision of the Board is a judicially reviewable action.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1998–2014 · leading case: Sloan v. West, 140 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sloan v. West, 140 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 1998). “5 C.F.R. § 1201.162 (b) (1997); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.”
Reynaldo Alvara v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 2014 MSPB 63 (MSPB 2014). “§ 7702 (c)(2); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.162 (a)(2). CERTIFICATION ¶18 Having found as a matter of law that the decision of the EEOC in this appeal constitutes an incorrect interpretation of civil service law, or in the alternative, that the evidence in the record does not support the…”
Reynaldo Alvara v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 2014 MSPB 63 (MSPB 2014). “§ 7702 (c)(2); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.162 (a)(2). CERTIFICATION ¶18 Having found as a matter of law that the decision of the EEOC in this appeal constitutes an incorrect interpretation of civil service law, or in the alternative, that the evidence in the record does not support the…”
Annette Davis v. Dep't of the Interior (MSPB 2014). “288 , 290 (1996); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.162 (a). ¶9 Here, the EEOC decision rests upon an interpretation of discrimination law, specifically, a clarification of the law pertaining to retaliation for protected EEO activity and the application of that law to the facts of this case.”
Annette Davis v. Dep't of the Interior (MSPB 2014). “288 , 290 (1996); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.162 (a). ¶9 Here, the EEOC decision rests upon an interpretation of discrimination law, specifically, a clarification of the law pertaining to retaliation for protected EEO activity and the application of that law to the facts of this case.”
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.