(a) Employment practices. A candidate who believes that an employment practice which was applied to him or her by the Office of Personnel Management violates a basic requirement in § 300.103 is entitled to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board under the provisions of its regulations.
(b) Examination ratings. A candidate may file an appeal with the Office from his or her examination rating or the rejection of his or her application, except that, where the Office has delegated examining authority to an agency, the candidate should appeal directly to that agency. The appeal and supporting documents shall be filed with the agency office that determined the rating.
(c) Complaints and grievances to an agency. (1) A candidate may file a complaint with an agency when he or she believes that an employment practice that was applied to him or her and that is administered by the agency discriminates against him or her on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy and gender identity), national origin, age (as defined by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended), disability, genetic information (including family medical history), or retaliation for exercising rights with respect to the categories enumerated above, where retaliation rights are available. The complaint must be filed and processed in accordance with the agency EEO procedures, as appropriate.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, an employee may file a grievance with an agency when he or she believes that an employment practice which was applied to him or her and which is administered or required by the agency violates a basic requirement in § 300.103. The grievance shall be filed and processed under an agency grievance system, if applicable, or a negotiated grievance system as applicable.
[40 FR 15380, Apr. 7, 1975, as amended at 41 FR 51579, Nov. 23, 1976; 44 FR 48951, Aug. 21, 1979; 60 FR 3057, Jan. 13, 1995; 60 FR 47040, Sept. 11, 1995; 79 FR 43922, July 29, 2014]
Notes of Decisions
James B. Dowd, Jr. v. The United States, 713 F.2d 720 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
· cites it 5× “OPM has been involved in this action from the outset. It was made aware at an early date of the misapplication of time-in-grade regulations, yet we can discern no effort whatsoever by OPM to correct (as opposed to circumvent) what was a flagrant violation of OPM’s own…”
Samuel F. Vesser, Jr. v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 29 F.3d 600 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
· cites it 3× “Vesser appealed OPM’s decision to the Board pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 300.104 (a), alleging that OPM committed an employment practice violation and engaged in age discrimination in removing his name from the register of eligible ALJ candidates.”
Chadwell v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 629 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
· cites it 3× “Because OPM’s one-year rule is not an employment practice, the Board does not have jurisdiction under 5 C.F.R. § 300.104 (a). 1 We affirm. Background Mr.”
William F. Curtin v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 846 F.2d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
“Curtin challenges the examination under 5 C.F.R. § 300.104 (a) which provides that “[a] candidate who believes that an employment practice which was applied to him or her by the Office of Personnel Management violates a basic requirement in § 300.”
Meeker v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 319 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
· cites it 5× “The Board invoked its jurisdiction under 5 C.F.R. § 300.104 (a). That regulation authorizes a candidate for appointment to a federal civil service position to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board if the candidate believes that an employment practice applied to him by OPM…”
Raymond G. Lackhouse v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 734 F.2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
· cites it 2× “Having lost on his argument before the board that 5 C.F.R. 300.104(a) provided a jurisdictional basis for his appeal, petitioner puts forth a new argument to this court.”
Dow v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 590 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
“5 C.F.R. § 300.104 (a). For there to be Board jurisdiction under this provision, there must have been an “employment practice” and that “practice” must have been “applied to” the applicant by OPM.”
— 5 C.F.R. § 300.104(a) — 1 case
Raymond G. Lackhouse v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 734 F.2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
“Having lost on his argument before the board that 5 C.F.R. 300.104(a) provided a jurisdictional basis for his appeal, petitioner puts forth a new argument to this court.”
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.