C.F.R. » Title 5 » CHAPTER II—MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD › SUBCHAPTER A—ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURES › PART 1201—PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES › Subpart B—Procedures for Appellate Cases

5 C.F.R. § 1201.36

Consolidating and joining appeals

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

(a) Explanation. (1) Consolidation occurs when the appeals of two or more parties are united for consideration because they contain identical or similar issues. For example, individual appeals rising from a single reduction in force might be consolidated.

(2) Joinder occurs when one person has filed two or more appeals and they are united for consideration. For example, a judge might join an appeal challenging a 30-day suspension with a pending appeal challenging a subsequent removal if the same appellant filed both appeals.

(b) Action by judge. A judge may consolidate or join cases on his or her own motion or on the motion of a party if doing so would:

(1) Expedite processing of the cases; and

(2) Not adversely affect the interests of the parties.

(c) Any objection to a motion for consolidation or joinder must be filed within 10 days of the date of service of the motion.

[54 FR 53504, Dec. 29, 1989, as amended at 77 FR 62365, Oct. 12, 2012]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 241 cases (102 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case: Peggy Maloney v. Exec. Off. of the President, Off. of Admin., 2022 MSPB 26 (MSPB 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Peggy Maloney v. Exec. Off. of the President, Off. of Admin., 2022 MSPB 26 (MSPB 2022). “However, in her July 23, 2020 initial decision, the administrative judge stated that “the appeals were later severed.” ID at 3 n.1. ¶36 An administrative judge may join cases if doing so would expedite processing of the cases and not adversely affect the interests of the parties.”
Jackie Leseman v. Dep't of the Army, 2015 MSPB 5 (MSPB 2015). “* Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.36 (a), this appeal was part of a consolidation.”
William Ralph Pumphrey v. Dep't of Def., 2015 MSPB 10 (MSPB 2015). · cites it 2× “We SUPPLEMENT the analysis in the initial decision to address the appellant’s due process argument and to deny 1 Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.36 , this appeal was part of a consolidation, Pentagon Force Protection Agency v.”
John Lauri Salo v. Dep't of Def., 2015 MSPB 14 (MSPB 2015). “We * Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.36 (a), this case was part of a consolidation, I n re DCMA Eastern Region Hearings v.”
Gregory Einboden v. Dep't of the Navy, 2015 MSPB 26 (MSPB 2015). “We 1 Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.36 (a), this appeal was part of a consolidation, Naval Sea Systems Command Dahlgren v.”
Tommie G. Savage v. Dep't of the Army, 2015 MSPB 51 (MSPB 2015). “1 (2012); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.36 (a), (b). We find that these criteria are satisfied here.”
Mary Abbott v. United States Postal Serv., 2023 MSPB 14 (MSPB 2023). “5 C.F.R. § 1201.36 (a)(2). 3 ¶4 On or about February 7, 2012, the appellant applied for disability retirement with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).”
Michelle Gilewicz v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 2024 MSPB 7 (MSPB 2024). “See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.36 . 4 include pecuniary losses and nonpecuniary losses, such as emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life.”
Johnathan Gajdos v. Dep't of the Army, 2014 MSPB 55 (MSPB 2014). “We therefore DENY the petition and AFFIRM the initial decision’s due 1 Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 1201.36 (a), this appeal was part of a consolidation.”
Douglas W. Freeze v. Dep't of the Navy, 2015 MSPB 9 (MSPB 2015). “See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.36 (b)(1). Accordingly, we deny the agency’s motion.”
Gregory Turner v. U.S. Postal Serv., 2016 MSPB 35 (MSPB 2016). “For the reasons set forth below, we JOIN the appeals under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.36 (b) because doing so will expedite processing without adversely affecting the interests of the parties, DENY the petitions for review, and AFFIRM the initial decisions.”
Gregory Turner v. U.S. Postal Serv., 2016 MSPB 35 (MSPB 2016). “For the reasons set forth below, we JOIN the appeals under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.36 (b) because doing so will expedite processing without adversely affecting the interests of the parties, DENY the petitions for review, and AFFIRM the initial decisions.”
Show all 241 citing cases →
— 5 C.F.R. § 1201.36(a)(1) — 2 cases
Prouty & Weller v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 2014 MSPB 90 (MSPB 2014).
Goeke & Bottini v. Dep't of Just., 2015 MSPB 1 (MSPB 2015).
— 5 C.F.R. § 1201.36(a)(2) — 1 case
Charles Adams v. Dep't of Def. (MSPB 2023).
— 5 C.F.R. § 1201.36(b)(1) — 1 case
Marcus D. Smith v. Dep't of Transp. (MSPB 2015).
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.