U.S. Code » Title 5 » Part PART III— EMPLOYEES › Subpart Subpart B— Employment and Retention › Chapter CHAPTER 33— EXAMINATION, SELECTION, AND PLACEMENT › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— EXAMINATION, CERTIFICATION, AND APPOINTMENT

5 U.S.C. § 3330b

Preference eligibles; judicial redress

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) In lieu of continuing the administrative redress procedure provided under section 3330a(d), a preference eligible, or a veteran described by section 3330a(a)(1)(B) with respect to a violation described by such section, may elect, in accordance with this section, to terminate those administrative proceedings and file an action with the appropriate United States district court not later than 60 days after the date of the election.(b) An election under this section may not be made—(1) before the 121st day after the date on which the appeal is filed with the Merit Systems Protection Board under section 3330a(d); or(2) after the Merit Systems Protection Board has issued a judicially reviewable decision on the merits of the appeal.(c) An election under this section shall be made, in writing, in such form and manner as the Merit Systems Protection Board shall by regulation prescribe. The election shall be effective as of the date on which it is received, and the administrative proceeding to which it relates shall terminate immediately upon the receipt of such election.(Added Pub. L. 105–339, § 3(a), Oct. 31, 1998, 112 Stat. 3184; amended Pub. L. 108–454, title VIII, § 804(b), Dec. 10, 2004, 118 Stat. 3626.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2004—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 108–454, which directed insertion of “, or a veteran described by section 3330a(a)(1)(B) with respect to a violation described by such section,” after “a preference eligible” in subsec. (a) of section 3330b, without specifying the Code title to be amended, was executed by making the insertion in subsec. (a) of this section, to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 2001–2020 · leading case: Conyers v. Rossides, 558 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Conyers v. Rossides, 558 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2009). · cites it 5× “The asserted jurisdictional basis for this claim is the VEOA, 5 U.S.C. § 3330b. As the Federal Circuit has noted, “the purpose of the VEOA is to provide preference eligible veterans with a method for seeking redress where their veterans’ preference rights have been violated in…”
Conforto v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 713 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “See 5 U.S.C. § 3330b(b) (“An election under this section may not be made .”
Kirkendall v. Dep't of the Army, 479 F.3d 830 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “” 5 U.S.C. § 3330b(a) (2000 & Supp.2006). Section 3330b(b) states: “[a]n election under this section may not be made — (1) before the 121st day after the date on which the appeal is filed with the Merit Systems Protection Board.”
Hunt v. United States Gov't, 154 F. Supp. 2d 1047 (E.D. Mich. 2001). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 3330b, Plaintiff chose to terminate each of his appeals before the Merit Systems Protection Board and pursue judicial action.”
Lane v. Potter, 699 F. Supp. 2d 358 (D. Mass. 2010). “5 U.S.C. § 3330b(a). Plaintiff withdrew his appeal to the MSPB on December 17, 2007 (Dkt.”
John S. Pope v. United States Dep't of Transp., 421 F.3d 480 (7th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “He has sued the department under 5 U.S.C. § 3330b, enacted as part of the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998, Pub.”
Figueroa v. Napolitano, 772 F. Supp. 2d 741 (D.S.C. 2010). “” 5 U.S.C. § 3330b(a). As Defendant correctly notes, the failure to exhaust these remedial mechanisms warrants dismissal of Plaintiffs claims.”
Conyers v. Hawley (2d Cir. 2009). · cites it 5× “The asserted jurisdictional basis for this claim is the VEOA, 5 U.S.C. § 3330b. As the Federal Circuit has noted, “the purpose of the VEOA is to provide preference eligible veterans with a method for seeking redress where their veterans’ preference rights have been violated in…”
Lance McDermott v. United States Postal Serv. (MSPB 2016). · cites it 2× “However, the appellant’s termination request cited 5 U.S.C. § 3330b, which applies to VEOA claims only, not USERRA claims.”
McIver v. Shulkin (D.D.C. 2018). · cites it 2× “5 U.S.C. § 3330b. 6 jurisdiction lacking where “Plaintiff withdrew his appeal to the MSPB on December 17, 2007 and this action was not filed until August 2008, almost eight months later”) (record citation omitted)).”
Pope, John S. v. TRAN (7th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “He has sued the department under 5 U.S.C. § 3330b, enacted as part of the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998, Pub.”
Wesley v. Brennan (E.D. Mo. 2020). “” 5 U.S.C. § 3330b(a). The failure to exhaust these remedial mechanisms warrants dismissal of s plaintiffs claims.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— 5 U.S.C. § 3330b(a) — 7 cases
Kirkendall v. Dep't of the Army, 479 F.3d 830 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “” 5 U.S.C. § 3330b(a) (2000 & Supp.2006). Section 3330b(b) states: “[a]n election under this section may not be made — (1) before the 121st day after the date on which the appeal is filed with the Merit Systems Protection Board.”
Lane v. Potter, 699 F. Supp. 2d 358 (D. Mass. 2010). “5 U.S.C. § 3330b(a). Plaintiff withdrew his appeal to the MSPB on December 17, 2007 (Dkt.”
Hunt v. United States Gov't, 154 F. Supp. 2d 1047 (E.D. Mich. 2001). “Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 3330b, Plaintiff chose to terminate each of his appeals before the Merit Systems Protection Board and pursue judicial action.”
Figueroa v. Napolitano, 772 F. Supp. 2d 741 (D.S.C. 2010). “” 5 U.S.C. § 3330b(a). As Defendant correctly notes, the failure to exhaust these remedial mechanisms warrants dismissal of Plaintiffs claims.”
Lance McDermott v. United States Postal Serv. (MSPB 2016). “However, the appellant’s termination request cited 5 U.S.C. § 3330b, which applies to VEOA claims only, not USERRA claims.”
— 5 U.S.C. § 3330b(b) — 4 cases
Conforto v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 713 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “See 5 U.S.C. § 3330b(b) (“An election under this section may not be made .”
Conyers v. Rossides, 558 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2009). “The asserted jurisdictional basis for this claim is the VEOA, 5 U.S.C. § 3330b. As the Federal Circuit has noted, “the purpose of the VEOA is to provide preference eligible veterans with a method for seeking redress where their veterans’ preference rights have been violated in…”
Marie Conforto v. Mspb (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Conyers v. Hawley (2d Cir. 2009). “The asserted jurisdictional basis for this claim is the VEOA, 5 U.S.C. § 3330b. As the Federal Circuit has noted, “the purpose of the VEOA is to provide preference eligible veterans with a method for seeking redress where their veterans’ preference rights have been violated in…”
— 5 U.S.C. § 3330b(b)(2) — 2 cases
Conyers v. Rossides, 558 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2009). “The asserted jurisdictional basis for this claim is the VEOA, 5 U.S.C. § 3330b. As the Federal Circuit has noted, “the purpose of the VEOA is to provide preference eligible veterans with a method for seeking redress where their veterans’ preference rights have been violated in…”
Conyers v. Hawley (2d Cir. 2009). “The asserted jurisdictional basis for this claim is the VEOA, 5 U.S.C. § 3330b. As the Federal Circuit has noted, “the purpose of the VEOA is to provide preference eligible veterans with a method for seeking redress where their veterans’ preference rights have been violated in…”
— 5 U.S.C. § 3330b(c) — 2 cases
Conyers v. Rossides, 558 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2009). “The asserted jurisdictional basis for this claim is the VEOA, 5 U.S.C. § 3330b. As the Federal Circuit has noted, “the purpose of the VEOA is to provide preference eligible veterans with a method for seeking redress where their veterans’ preference rights have been violated in…”
Conyers v. Hawley (2d Cir. 2009). “The asserted jurisdictional basis for this claim is the VEOA, 5 U.S.C. § 3330b. As the Federal Circuit has noted, “the purpose of the VEOA is to provide preference eligible veterans with a method for seeking redress where their veterans’ preference rights have been violated in…”
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.