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. § 3330c

Preference eligibles; remedy

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) If the Merit Systems Protection Board (in a proceeding under section 3330a) or a court (in a proceeding under section 3330b) determines that an agency has violated a right described in section 3330a, the Board or court (as the case may be) shall order the agency to comply with such provisions and award compensation for any loss of wages or benefits suffered by the individual by reason of the violation involved. If the Board or court determines that such violation was willful, it shall award an amount equal to backpay as liquidated damages.(b) A preference eligible who prevails in an action under section 3330a or 3330b shall be awarded reasonable attorney fees, expert witness fees, and other litigation expenses.(Added Pub. L. 105–339, § 3(a), Oct. 31, 1998, 112 Stat. 3184.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case: Marshall v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 587 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Marshall v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 587 F.3d 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2009). · cites it 10× “We conclude that the MSPB erred in this case by failing to award the proper remedies pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 3330c. I In 2004, Mr. Marshall, a veteran rated 20% disabled, applied for a Budget Analyst GS-560-13 position with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), an operating…”
Conyers v. Rossides, 558 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “, directing the Administrator to comply with the veterans’ preference provisions incorporated in the FAA’s personnel management system and granting him relief pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 3330c. Finally, Conyers seeks a declaration that the process used to evaluate his application…”
Augustine v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 429 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2005). · cites it 5× “As the prevailing party, *1337 Augustine moved for attorney’s fees under 5 U.S.C. § 3330c(b). The Board held that Augustine could not recover fees because her attorney was not licensed to practice in the state in which the services were rendered.”
Augustine v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 503 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007). · cites it 7× “Thus, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 3330c(a), the AJ ordered the VA to appoint Ms.”
Morse v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 93 Fed. Cl. 780 (Fed. Cl. 2010). · cites it 2× “2007), the Federal Circuit reviewed a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) which denied attorneys’ fees available under 5 U.S.C. § 3330c(b) (2006) to a “preference-eligible” veteran.”
Weed v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 571 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “at 7-8; see 5 U.S.C. § 3330c(a) (“If the Board or court determines that [an agency’s] violation [of a veteran’s preference rights] was willful, it shall award an amount equal to backpay as liquidated damages.”
Kirkendall v. Dep't of the Army, 479 F.3d 830 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “5 U.S.C. § 3330c(a). Moreover, if the violation is found to be willful, the agency is ordered to pay the aggrieved veteran “an amount equal to backpay as liquidated damages.”
Kirkendall v. Dep't of the Army, 573 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “The board rejected the offer of priority consideration as inadequate under 5 U.S.C. § 3330c(a): [Pjriority consideration for a future vacancy is a remedy that provides prospective relief for the denial of the opportunity to compete, but it does not correct the agency’s error…”
Searles v. United States, 88 Fed. Cl. 801 (Fed. Cl. 2009). “5 U.S.C. § 3330c (2009). For these reasons, the plaintiffs claims under the Jobs for Veterans Act and Veterans Employment Opportunities Act are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”
Timothy Schultz v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 2022 MSPB 23 (MSPB 2022). · cites it 2× “5 U.S.C. § 3330c(a); 5 C.F.R. § 1208.25 (a).”
Weed v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 711 F. App'x 624 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “Weed was entitled to lost wages or benefits, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 3330c, from the selection date that violated his veterans’ preference rights until the time he declined the position at issue.”
Alvern C. Weed v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 2016 MSPB 45 (MSPB 2016). · cites it 5× “This conclusion is supported by the fact that the job offer was retroactive to the date of the agency’s selection for the first of the four vacancies.”
Show all 34 citing cases →
— 5 U.S.C. § 3330c(a) — 25 cases
Conyers v. Rossides, 558 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2009). “, directing the Administrator to comply with the veterans’ preference provisions incorporated in the FAA’s personnel management system and granting him relief pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 3330c. Finally, Conyers seeks a declaration that the process used to evaluate his application…”
Weed v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 571 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “at 7-8; see 5 U.S.C. § 3330c(a) (“If the Board or court determines that [an agency’s] violation [of a veteran’s preference rights] was willful, it shall award an amount equal to backpay as liquidated damages.”
Kirkendall v. Dep't of the Army, 479 F.3d 830 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “5 U.S.C. § 3330c(a). Moreover, if the violation is found to be willful, the agency is ordered to pay the aggrieved veteran “an amount equal to backpay as liquidated damages.”
Kirkendall v. Dep't of the Army, 573 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “The board rejected the offer of priority consideration as inadequate under 5 U.S.C. § 3330c(a): [Pjriority consideration for a future vacancy is a remedy that provides prospective relief for the denial of the opportunity to compete, but it does not correct the agency’s error…”
Timothy Schultz v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 2022 MSPB 23 (MSPB 2022). “5 U.S.C. § 3330c(a); 5 C.F.R. § 1208.25 (a).”
— 5 U.S.C. § 3330c(b) — 4 cases
Augustine v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 429 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “As the prevailing party, *1337 Augustine moved for attorney’s fees under 5 U.S.C. § 3330c(b). The Board held that Augustine could not recover fees because her attorney was not licensed to practice in the state in which the services were rendered.”
Augustine v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 503 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “Thus, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 3330c(a), the AJ ordered the VA to appoint Ms.”
Morse v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 93 Fed. Cl. 780 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “2007), the Federal Circuit reviewed a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) which denied attorneys’ fees available under 5 U.S.C. § 3330c(b) (2006) to a “preference-eligible” veteran.”
Suzanne Alyce Kopec v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2016).
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.