5 C.F.R. § 302.501
Entitlement
An individual who is covered by 5 U.S.C. 8101(1) and is entitled to priority consideration under this part (see § 302.103) may appeal a violation of his/her restoration rights to the Merit Systems Protection Board under the provisions of the Board's regulations by presenting factual information that he or she was denied restoration rights because of the employment of another person.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2023 · leading case: Kirkendall v. Dep't of the Army, 479 F.3d 830 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Kirkendall v. Dep't of the Army, 479 F.3d 830 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “Other OPM regulations that authorize appeals to the Board include 5 C.F.R. §§ 302.501 , 330.209, 352.313, 352.”
George Noble v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 892 F.2d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “§ 8101 (1988); 5 C.F.R. § 302.501 (1989). Preference employees discharged for efficiency of the service because of misconduct are entitled to appeal to the MSPB.”
Juels v. United States Postal Serv., 347 F. App'x 597 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “See 5 C.F.R. § 302.501 . The AJ found that the agency had not improperly hired another in lieu of Juels because it did not hire any external candidates into full-time clerk positions, instead promoting from within.”
Jack Ferrell v. United States Postal Serv. (MSPB 2016). “, priority consideration on the agency’s reemployment list, with appeal rights under 5 C.F.R. § 302.501 , which requires him to present factual information that he was denied restoration rights because of the employment of another person.”
Brenda Melton v. United States Postal Serv. (MSPB 2023). “See 5 C.F.R. § 302.501 (explaining that an excepted-service employee who is entitled to priority consideration may appeal a violation of her restoration rights to the Board by presenting factual information that she was denied restoration rights because of the employment of…”
Vanderlee v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 602 F. App'x 815 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “…[]her restoration rights to the *817 Merit Systems Protection Board under the provisions of the Board's regulations.” 5 C.F.R. § 302.501 (2013).”
Ayoka B. Medlock-Nurse v. Jud. Branch (MSPB 2015). “304 (b) and 5 C.F.R. § 302.501 . See ID at 3 (citing McFarlane v.”
Smith v. United States Postal Serv., 81 F. App'x 338 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “” 5 C.F.R. § 302.501 . A person entitled to priority consideration is someone who is “separated without misconduct, from a position without time limit, because of a compensable injury.”
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.