5 U.S.C. § 3330a

Preference eligibles; administrative redress

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)(1)(A) A preference eligible who alleges that an agency has violated such individual’s rights under any statute or regulation relating to veterans’ preference may file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor.(B) A veteran described in section 3304(l)(1) who alleges that an agency has violated such section with respect to such veteran may file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor.(2)(A) A complaint under this subsection must be filed within 60 days after the date of the alleged violation.(B) Such complaint shall be in writing, be in such form as the Secretary may prescribe, specify the agency against which the complaint is filed, and contain a summary of the allegations that form the basis for the complaint.(3) The Secretary shall, upon request, provide technical assistance to a potential complainant with respect to a complaint under this subsection.(b)(1) The Secretary of Labor shall investigate each complaint under subsection (a).(2) In carrying out any investigation under this subsection, the Secretary’s duly authorized representatives shall, at all reasonable times, have reasonable access to, for purposes of examination, and the right to copy and receive, any documents of any person or agency that the Secretary considers relevant to the investigation.(3) In carrying out any investigation under this subsection, the Secretary may require by subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of documents relating to any matter under investigation. In case of disobedience of the subpoena or contumacy and on request of the Secretary, the Attorney General may apply to any district court of the United States in whose jurisdiction such disobedience or contumacy occurs for an order enforcing the subpoena.(4) Upon application, the district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to issue writs commanding any person or agency to comply with the subpoena of the Secretary or to comply with any order of the Secretary made pursuant to a lawful investigation under this subsection and the district courts shall have jurisdiction to punish failure to obey a subpoena or other lawful order of the Secretary as a contempt of court.(c)(1)(A) If the Secretary of Labor determines as a result of an investigation under subsection (b) that the action alleged in a complaint under subsection (a) occurred, the Secretary shall attempt to resolve the complaint by making reasonable efforts to ensure that the agency specified in the complaint complies with applicable provisions of statute or regulation relating to veterans’ preference.(B) The Secretary of Labor shall make determinations referred to in subparagraph (A) based on a preponderance of the evidence.(2) If the efforts of the Secretary under subsection (b) with respect to a complaint under subsection (a) do not result in the resolution of the complaint, the Secretary shall notify the person who submitted the complaint, in writing, of the results of the Secretary’s investigation under subsection (b).(d)(1) If the Secretary of Labor is unable to resolve a complaint under subsection (a) within 60 days after the date on which it is filed, the complainant may elect to appeal the alleged violation to the Merit Systems Protection Board in accordance with such procedures as the Merit Systems Protection Board shall prescribe, except that in no event may any such appeal be brought—(A) before the 61st day after the date on which the complaint is filed; or(B) later than 15 days after the date on which the complainant receives written notification from the Secretary under subsection (c)(2).(2) An appeal under this subsection may not be brought unless—(A) the complainant first provides written notification to the Secretary of such complainant’s intention to bring such appeal; and(B) appropriate evidence of compliance with subparagraph (A) is included (in such form and manner as the Merit Systems Protection Board may prescribe) with the notice of appeal under this subsection.(3) Upon receiving notification under paragraph (2)(A), the Secretary shall not continue to investigate or further attempt to resolve the complaint to which the notification relates.(e)(1) This section shall not be construed to prohibit a preference eligible from appealing directly to the Merit Systems Protection Board from any action which is appealable to the Board under any other law, rule, or regulation, in lieu of administrative redress under this section.(2) A preference eligible may not pursue redress for an alleged violation described in subsection (a) under this section at the same time the preference eligible pursues redress for such violation under any other law, rule, or regulation.(Added Pub. L. 105–339, § 3(a), Oct. 31, 1998, 112 Stat. 3182; amended Pub. L. 108–454, title VIII, § 804(a), Dec. 10, 2004, 118 Stat. 3626; Pub. L. 118–188, § 2(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), Dec. 23, 2024, 138 Stat. 2645.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2024—Subsec. (a)(1)(B). Pub. L. 118–188 substituted “3304(l)(1)” for “3304(f)(1)”.

2004—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 108–454 designated existing provisions as subpar. (A) and added subpar. (B).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 274 cases (101 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: Kirkendall v. Dep't of the Army, 479 F.3d 830 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kirkendall v. Dep't of the Army, 479 F.3d 830 (Fed. Cir. 2007). · cites it 20× “Kirkendall appeals the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which dismissed his claims that he had been discriminated against in violation of the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (‘VEOA”), 5 U.S.C. § 3330a (2000), and the Uniformed Services Employment and…”

Vores v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 324 F. App'x 883 (Fed. Cir. 2009). · cites it 6× “We explained that the redress procedures provided in 5 U.S.C. § 3330a are fundamentally inconsistent with the title 38 appointment process and that 5 U.”

Richard A. Scarnati v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 344 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2003). · cites it 8× “From this it follows that any requirements under Title 5 relating to the civil service appointment process that are different from the Title 38 appointment requirements, including the redress procedures in 5 U.S.C. § 3330a, would be by definition “inconsistent” with the Title 38…”

John E. Kirkendall v. Dep't of the Army, 412 F.3d 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2005). · cites it 12× “Kirkendall appeals the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which dismissed his claims that he had been discriminated against in violation of the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (“VEOA”), 5 U.S.C. § 3330a (2000), and the Uniformed Services Employment and…”

Cyril Oram v. Dep't of the Navy, 2022 MSPB 30 (MSPB 2022). · cites it 3× “1 (2016); see 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(1)(B). 4 The Board has held that VEOA right to compete appeals have an additional jurisdictional element, i.”

Conyers v. Rossides, 558 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “Conyers also seeks an order, pursuant to the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act (“VEOA”) of 1998, 5 U.S.C. § 3330a et seq., directing the Administrator to comply with the veterans’ preference provisions incorporated in the FAA’s personnel management system and granting him…”

James Campion v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 326 F.3d 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “§ 3304 (f)(1) provides an opportunity for both preference-eligible veterans and those honorably separated after three or more years of active service to compete for vacant federal positions, the AJ explained that 5 U.S.C. § 3330a provides a right of appeal to the Board only to…”

Guy C. Patterson v. Dep't of the Interior, 424 F.3d 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2005). · cites it 3× “3182 (codified at 5 U.S.C. § 3330a et seq.), and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA”), Pub.”

Dean v. Dep't of Labor, 808 F.3d 497 (Fed. Cir. 2015). · cites it 3× “Dean’s complaint implicated §§ 3302(1) and 3308 of Title 5, we must consider whether these statutes relate to veterans’ preference.”

Riller v. Fed. Deposit Ins., 818 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “5 U.S.C. § 3330a. “Federal agencies generally use two types of selection to fill vacancies: (1) the open ‘competitive examination’ process and (2) - the .”

Barry J. Abell v. Dep't of the Navy, 343 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “' 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(l). If the Secretary is unable to resolve the complaint within 60 days, the veteran may file an appeal of the alleged violation with the Board.”

Kirkendall v. Dept. Of the Army, 479 F.3d 830 (Fed. Cir. 2005). · cites it 10× “Kirkendall appeals the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which dismissed his claims that he had been discriminated against in violation of the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (“VEOA”), 5 U.S.C. § 3330a (2000), and the Uniformed Services Employment and…”

Show all 274 citing cases →

— 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(2)(A) — 2 cases

Kirkendall v. Dep't of the Army, 479 F.3d 830 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “Kirkendall appeals the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which dismissed his claims that he had been discriminated against in violation of the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (‘VEOA”), 5 U.S.C. § 3330a (2000), and the Uniformed Services Employment and…”

Bagunas v. United States Postal Serv., 73 F. App'x 407 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

— 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(A)(1)(B) — 1 case

Corey Stoglin v. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (MSPB 2023).

— 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a) — 9 cases

Lynch v. Dep't of the Army, 245 F. App'x 13 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Harold Gause v. Mark Esper, Sec'y (5th Cir. 2020).

Kathy Strand v. Dep't of the Army (MSPB 2023).

Samuel Trujillo v. Dep't of the Army (MSPB 2024).

Aguilar v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd. (Fed. Cir. 2007).

— 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(1) — 12 cases

O'Brien v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 118 F. App'x 484 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Asatov v. Agency for Int'l Dev., 542 F. App'x 937 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Sheila Lundlee v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2024).

Carlton Hooker v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2023).

David Brimer v. Dep't of the Navy (MSPB 2023).

— 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(1)(A) — 67 cases

Mccoy v. Mspb, 121 F.4th 204 (Fed. Cir. 2024).

Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 585 F.3d 310 (7th Cir. 2009).

Marnie Golden v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 2023 MSPB 19 (MSPB 2023).

Hill v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 484 F. App'x 484 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

Beyers v. Dep't of State, 505 F. App'x 951 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

— 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(1)(B) — 40 cases

Cyril Oram v. Dep't of the Navy, 2022 MSPB 30 (MSPB 2022). “1 (2016); see 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(1)(B). 4 The Board has held that VEOA right to compete appeals have an additional jurisdictional element, i.”

Cyril Oram v. Dep't of Def. (MSPB 2022).

Dwayne L. Lester v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2016).

Cecil Avery v. Dep't of the Army (MSPB 2023).

— 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(2) — 4 cases

Hill v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 484 F. App'x 484 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

Christopher Freeman v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2023).

Ashley Cody v. Dep't of Labor (MSPB 2024).

Christopher Harvey Hare v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin. (MSPB 2014).

— 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(2)(A) — 41 cases

John E. Kirkendall v. Dep't of the Army, 412 F.3d 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “Kirkendall appeals the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which dismissed his claims that he had been discriminated against in violation of the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (“VEOA”), 5 U.S.C. § 3330a (2000), and the Uniformed Services Employment and…”

Jones v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 497 F. App'x 1 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

Kirkendall v. Dept. Of the Army, 479 F.3d 830 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “Kirkendall appeals the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which dismissed his claims that he had been discriminated against in violation of the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (“VEOA”), 5 U.S.C. § 3330a (2000), and the Uniformed Services Employment and…”

Kirkendall v. Dep't of the Army, 159 F. App'x 193 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

— 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(2)(A)(B) — 1 case

Robert Boone v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2016).

— 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(2)(B) — 5 cases

Gingery v. Dep't of the Treasury, 403 F. App'x 498 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Hunt v. United States Army, 30 F. App'x 567 (6th Cir. 2002).

Hill v. Potter, 48 F. App'x 198 (6th Cir. 2002).

Stephen Dambra v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (MSPB 2022).

Michael G. Bieluch v. United States Postal Serv. (MSPB 2015).

— 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(d)(1) — 2 cases

DeGerald R. Wilson v. Dep't of Educ. (MSPB 2014).

— 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(l) — 7 cases

Richard A. Scarnati v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 344 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “From this it follows that any requirements under Title 5 relating to the civil service appointment process that are different from the Title 38 appointment requirements, including the redress procedures in 5 U.S.C. § 3330a, would be by definition “inconsistent” with the Title 38…”

Hunt v. United States Gov't, 154 F. Supp. 2d 1047 (E.D. Mich. 2001).

Light v. Small Bus. Admin., 208 F. App'x 819 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Midyett v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 594 F. App'x 969 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

— 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(l)(A) — 16 cases

Guy C. Patterson v. Dep't of the Interior, 424 F.3d 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “3182 (codified at 5 U.S.C. § 3330a et seq.), and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA”), Pub.”

Dean v. Dep't of Labor, 808 F.3d 497 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “Dean’s complaint implicated §§ 3302(1) and 3308 of Title 5, we must consider whether these statutes relate to veterans’ preference.”

Vores v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 324 F. App'x 883 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “We explained that the redress procedures provided in 5 U.S.C. § 3330a are fundamentally inconsistent with the title 38 appointment process and that 5 U.”

Johnson v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 276 F. App'x 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

— 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(l)(B) — 1 case

James Burke v. Dep't of Just. (MSPB 2023).

— 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(b) — 1 case

Anthony Salazar v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 2024 MSPB 11 (MSPB 2024).

— 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(c)(2) — 5 cases

Williams v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 89 F. App'x 714 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Stephen Dambra v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (MSPB 2022).

Charles Waskevich v. Dep't of the Treasury (MSPB 2023).

David Hendy v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2024).

Charles W. Heckman v. Dep't of the Interior (MSPB 2015).

— 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(d) — 23 cases

Burroughs v. Dep't of the Army, 445 F. App'x 347 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Vassallo v. Dep't of Def., 797 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

Gingery v. Dep't of the Treasury, 403 F. App'x 498 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

— 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(d)(1) — 24 cases

Slattery v. Dep't of Just., 590 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Anthony Salazar v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 2024 MSPB 11 (MSPB 2024).

Metzenbaum v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 122 F. App'x 476 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

William Jolley v. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev. (MSPB 2022).

Sandra Denise Ebron v. Dep't of Def. (MSPB 2015).

— 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(d)(1)(A) — 1 case

Corey D. Stoglin v. Dep't of the Air Force (MSPB 2014).

— 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(d)(1)(B) — 8 cases

Corey D. Stoglin v. Dep't of the Air Force (MSPB 2014).

Dean M. Finch v. United States Postal Serv. (MSPB 2014).

Charles W. Heckman v. Dep't of the Interior (MSPB 2015).

— 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(d)(2) — 2 cases

Christopher Freeman v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2023).

Kenneth Harper v. Dep't of the Army (MSPB 2022).

— 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(d)(a) — 1 case

Gingery v. Dep't of the Treasury, 493 F. App'x 64 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

— 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(d)(l) — 11 cases

Dalelyn Lapuh v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 284 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

Slattery v. Dep't of Just., 590 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Lane v. Potter, 699 F. Supp. 2d 358 (D. Mass. 2010).

— 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(d)(l)(B) — 4 cases

Kirkendall v. Dep't of the Army, 159 F. App'x 193 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Gossage v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 513 F. App'x 981 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

— 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(e)(2) — 4 cases

Figueroa v. Napolitano, 772 F. Supp. 2d 741 (D.S.C. 2010).

Gossage v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 513 F. App'x 981 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Demery v. MSPB (Fed. Cir. 2025).

Deselle Volson v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2023).

— 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(e)(l) — 1 case

— 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(l)(a)(A) — 1 case

Land Grantors v. United States, 81 Fed. Cl. 580 (Fed. Cl. 2008).

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.