22 U.S.C. § 3662

Appeals to Board; procedures

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 22 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Persons entitled to appeal; form; time

An employee may appeal to the Panama Canal Board of Appeals from an adverse determination made by an agency under section 3660 of this title. The appeal shall be made in writing within a reasonable time (as specified in regulations prescribed by, or under the authority of, the Commission) after the date of the transmittal by the agency to the employee of written notice of the adverse determination.

(b) Personal appearance

The Board may authorize, in connection with an appeal pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, a personal appearance before the Board by the employee, or by a representative of the employee designated for that purpose.

(c) Consideration of evidence; decisionAfter investigation and consideration of the evidence submitted, the Board shall—(1) prepare a written decision on the appeal;(2) transmit its decision to the agency concerned; and(3) transmit copies of the decision to the employee concerned or to the designated representative.(d) Finality of decision

The decision of the Board on any question or other matter relating to an appeal is final and conclusive. The agency concerned shall take action in accordance with the decision of the Board.

(Pub. L. 96–70, title I, § 1222, Sept. 27, 1979, 93 Stat. 467; Pub. L. 105–85, div. C, title XXXV, § 3548, Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 2073.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1997—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 105–85 substituted “Commission” for “President”.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1985–2020 · leading case: Arrocha v. Panama Canal Comm'n, 609 F. Supp. 231 (E.D.N.Y 1985).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Arrocha v. Panama Canal Comm'n, 609 F. Supp. 231 (E.D.N.Y 1985). “I find that nothing in 22 U.S.C. § 3662 , which states that a decision by the Panama Canal Board of Appeals is "final and conclusive," preeludes an action under Title VII.”

Perdue v. Post Master (E.D. Wash. 2020). “In its motion, Defendant argued that the Court lacked 19 jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ complaints because the Postal Accountability and 20 Enhancement Act of 2006 (PAEA) grants exclusive jurisdiction over complaints 21 related to postal service and rates to the Postal Regulatory…”

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.