(a) Appeal. One or more employees may file an appeal as representatives of a class of employees. The judge will hear the case as a class appeal if he or she finds that a class appeal is the fairest and most efficient way to adjudicate the appeal and that the representative of the parties will adequately protect the interests of all parties. When a class appeal is filed, the time from the filing date until the judge issues his or her decision under paragraph (b) of this section is not counted in computing the time limit for individual members of the potential class to file individual appeals.
(b) Procedure. The judge will consider the appellant's request and any opposition to that request, and will issue an order within 30 days after the appeal is filed stating whether the appeal is to be heard as a class appeal. If the judge denies the request, the appellants affected by the decision may file individual appeals within 30 days after the date of receipt of the decision denying the request to be heard as a class appeal. Each individual appellant is responsible for either filing an individual appeal within the original time limit, or keeping informed of the status of a class appeal and, if the class appeal is denied, filing an individual appeal within the additional 35-day period.
(c) Standards. In determining whether it is appropriate to treat an appeal as a class action, the judge will be guided but not controlled by the applicable provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(d) Electronic filing. A request to hear a case as a class appeal and any opposition thereto may not be filed in electronic form. Subsequent pleadings may be filed and served in electronic form, provided that the requirements of § 1201.14 are satisfied.
[54 FR 53504, Dec. 29, 1989, as amended at 59 FR 31109, June 17, 1994; 62 FR 59992, Nov. 6, 1997; 68 FR 59862, Oct. 20, 2003; 69 FR 57630, Sept. 27, 2004]
Notes of Decisions
Margaret A. Cheeseman v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 791 F.2d 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
“See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.27 (a), (c) (1981). Petitioner is the widow of a Federal employee who retired in 1978 after electing not to provide a survivor annuity for her.”
Certain Former Csa Employees v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 762 F.2d 978 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
· cites it 2× “Several of these employees moved the Board, under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.27 (1982), to hear the appeals as a class action or, alternatively, to consolidate their appeals with those of the other former employees.”
Wigton v. Berry, 949 F. Supp. 2d 616 (W.D. Pa. 2013).
“” 5 C.F.R. § 1201.27 . Although the regulation does state that the MSPB in making its decision should be "guided but not controlled by the applicable provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” which would include Fed.”
Kluge v. Dhs (Fed. Cir. 2023).
· cites it 5× “We further explain each of these conclusions below. i. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 As an initial matter, the Board, unlike district courts, is not bound by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 in de- termining whether to grant or deny class certification.”
Sylvia Wigton v. Dir. United States Off. of Pers. Manage (3rd Cir. 2023).
· cites it 2× “” McNary, 498 8 MSPB regulations permit “class appeals,” which allow for employees to “file an appeal as representatives of a class of employees,” 5 C.F.R. § 1201.27 , but this is an inadequate avenue for the type of relief sought here.”
Sylvia Wigton v. Dir. United States Off. of Pers. Manage (3rd Cir. 2023).
· cites it 2× “Indeed, the District Court dismissed the class’s request that it grant such 8 MSPB regulations permit “class appeals,” which allow for employees to “file an appeal as representatives of a class of employees,” 5 C.F.R. § 1201.27 , but this is an inadequate avenue for the type of…”
Colister Slater v. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (MSPB 2016).
“” 5 C.F.R. § 1201.27 (a). They further provide that “[i]n determining whether it is appropriate to treat an appeal as a class action, the judge will be guided but not controlled by the applicable provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Stan Laber v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. (MSPB 2024).
“PFR File, Tab 6 at 4-5; see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.27 . Because we conclude that this appeal has been rendered moot by OPM’s issuance of a final appealable decision in this case, we need not address whether the administrative judge erred in failing to rule on the appellant’s request…”
Platero v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2026).
“There, the board’s decision was governed by 5 C.F.R. § 1201.27 , which “instructs that the applicable provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may guide but not control the administrative judge’s decision.”
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.