5 U.S.C. § 1205
Transmittal of information to Congress
Notwithstanding any other provision of law or any rule, regulation or policy directive, any member of the Board, or any employee of the Board designated by the Board, may transmit to the Congress on the request of any committee or subcommittee thereof, by report, testimony, or otherwise, information and views on functions, responsibilities, or other matters relating to the Board, without review, clearance, or approval by any other administrative authority.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 71
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: John H. Kerr v. Nat'l Endowment for the Arts, 726 F.2d 730 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
John H. Kerr v. Nat'l Endowment for the Arts, 726 F.2d 730 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “*733 5 U.S.C. § 1205 (a)(1)(2) (emphasis added).”
Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367 (1983). “5 U. S. C. §§ 1205 , 7543(d), 7701 (1982 ed.”
Nat'l Treasury Employees Union v. United States Merit Sys. Prot. Bd. & United States Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 743 F.2d 895 (D.C. Cir. 1984). “Under 5 U.S.C. § 1205 (e)(2)(A), the MSPB — when it grants review — must declare a regulation *899 invalid on its face if it determines that the terms of the regulation, if implemented by an agency, would require an employee to commit any of the prohibited personnel practices…”
United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439 (1988). “The second structural element is the primacy of the MSPB for administrative resolution of disputes over adverse personnel action, 5 U. S. C. §§ 1205 , 4303(e), 7513(d), 7701 (1982 ed.”
Celia A. Wren v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 681 F.2d 867 (D.C. Cir. 1982). “§ 1206 (c)(1)(A); and once such matters have been brought to the Board, it rather than the OSC has power to take “final agency action,” 5 U.S.C. § 1205 (a)(1); therefore the Board’s jurisdiction over worthy whistleblower cases will be undermined if petitions to the OSC are not…”
Despina Spirides v. John E. Reinhardt, 613 F.2d 826 (D.C. Cir. 1979). “Webb, 17 an individual must satisfy all subsections of 5 U.S.C. § 1205 (a) “to be deemed an employee within the meaning of the Civil Service laws.”
Betty Martin v. Off. of Special Couns., 819 F.2d 1181 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “5 U.S.C. § 1205 (b)(1) (1982). The functions of this sort of quasi-judicial tribunal track those of the civil courts.”
William S. Barnhart v. Donald Devine, 771 F.2d 1515 (D.C. Cir. 1985). “Fisher), reprinted in Legislative History, supra note 5, at 1120; see also 5 U.S.C. § 1205 (e)(1) (1982). If the MSPB finds the rule or regulation to be in violation of merit system principles, the Board can invalidate it.”
Neal Kenneth Maddox v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 759 F.2d 9 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “Maddox alleges that the reassignment violated his “veterans preference rights, legal rights, and seniority rights.”
James N. Stephens v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Sec'y, James N. Stephens v. Terry S. Coleman, Isabel P. Dunst, 901 F.2d 1571 (11th Cir. 1990). “5 U.S.C. § 1205 . The OSC concluded that the regulations claimed to have been violated by HHS did not apply to Stephens because he was an exempt employee.”
John G. Hagmeyer v. Dep't of the Treasury, 852 F.2d 531 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “The MSPB principally contends, however, that two of the types of rulings at issue — timeliness and jurisdiction — are made under its general enabling statute, 5 U.S.C. § 1205 (1982), to decide all matters within its purview, and not under its appellate jurisdiction set forth in…”
Gonzalez v. Dep't of Transp., 551 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “This court vacated, reading § 1204 (originally numbered 5 U.S.C. § 1205 ) as “a broad grant of enforcement power.”
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.