5 U.S.C. § 1201
Appointment of members of the Merit Systems Protection Board
The Merit Systems Protection Board is composed of 3 members appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, not more than 2 of whom may be adherents of the same political party. The members of the Board shall be individuals who, by demonstrated ability, background, training, or experience are especially qualified to carry out the functions of the Board. No member of the Board may hold another office or position in the Government of the United States, except as otherwise provided by law or at the direction of the President. The Board shall have an official seal which shall be judicially noticed. The Board shall have its principal office in the District of Columbia and may have field offices in other appropriate locations.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 88
cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Dep't of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).
Dep't of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988). “He served as a veteran's-preference-eligible civilian employee of the Navy subject to the provisions of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (Act), 5 U. S. C. § 1201 et seq. The mission of the Refit Facility is to provide quick-turnaround repair, replenishment, and systems…”
McIntosh v. Def., 53 F.4th 630 (Fed. Cir. 2022). “5 U.S.C. § 1201 . The Board’s administrative judges, who are appointed under the Board Chairman’s general authority under 5 U.”
Mize-Kurzman v. Marin Cmty. Coll. Dist., 275 Educ. L. Rep. 882 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012). “1 (1988); 5 U.S.C. § 1201 note (Supp.1990). Congress thought such improved protection desirable because whistleblowers serve the public interest by assisting in the elimination of fraud, waste, abuse, corruption, and unnecessary government expenditures.”
Montgomery v. E. Corr. Inst., 835 A.2d 169 (Md. 2003). “1993) (citing 5 U.S.C. § 1201 note (Supp. III 1991)). *628 The WPA substantially changed the role of the OSC [Office of Special Counsel][ 10 ] revised the substantive provisions of the whistleblower defense, and created a new route in whistleblowing cases for employees to take…”
Gonzalez v. Otero, 864 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2017). “The plaintiffs’ theories run headlong into an impenetrable barrier forged by the combination of the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA), see 5 U.S.C. § 1201 (and scattered sections of Title 5 of the U.”
Parkinson v. Dep't of Just., 815 F.3d 757 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “Availability of Judicial Review of Parkinson’s USERRA and Whistleblower Claims It is undisputed in this case that Parkinson has no right to assert before the Board an individual right of action under the Whistleblower Protection Act, 5 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq., or the Uniformed…”
Evelyn McAdams v. Janet Reno, United States Attorney Gen., in Her Off. Capacity & as Agency Head United States of Am., 64 F.3d 1137 (8th Cir. 1995). “5 U.S.C. § 1201 . In mixed cases, however, the board is authorized and required to decide both the dis *1143 crimination issue and the appealable action.”
Sloan v. West, 140 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 1998). “After several antecedents, in 1978 Congress passed the Civil Service Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. § 1201 et. seq., with the hope of simplifying and revising the rules and regulations governing federal employees.”
Hall v. United States Dep't of Labor, Admin. Review Bd., 476 F.3d 847 (10th Cir. 2007). “Hall argues, however, that the holding in Egan is confined to the specific statutory scheme at issue in that case — the authority granted to the Merit Systems Protection Board under the Civil Service Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq. — and that because he brought his claim…”
Chong McClenning v. Dep't of the Army, 2022 MSPB 3 (MSPB 2022). “The interlocutory appeal process permits the Board members, who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, 5 U.S.C. § 1201 , to address an issue while an appeal is still pending before an administrative judge.”
William S. Barnhart v. Donald Devine, Dir., Opm, 771 F.2d 1515 (D.C. Cir. 1985). “; see 5 U.S.C. §§ 1201 et seq. (1982). The MSPB was given authority to adjudicate any claim asserting that an agency had violated a merit system principle or committed a “prohibited personnel practice” by violating a statute which embodied any merit system principle.”
Kenneth E. Knollenberg v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 953 F.2d 623 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “1 (1988); 5 U.S.C. § 1201 note (Supp. 1990). Congress thought such improved protection desirable because whistle-blowers serve the public interest by assisting in the elimination of fraud, waste, abuse, corruption, and unnecessary government expenditures.”
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.