McNair v. Merit Systems Protection Board

Federal Circuit

McNair v. Merit Systems Protection Board

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DecidedAugust 12, 2011

Docket2011-3142

StatusUnpublished

This text of McNair v. Merit Systems Protection Board (McNair v. Merit Systems Protection Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McNair v. Merit Systems Protection Board, (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

NOTE: This order is n0nprecedentia1. United States Court of AppeaIs for the FederaI Circuit JACQUELINE H. MCNAIR, Petitioner, V. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Resp0nden,t, AND EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, " In,tervenor. 2011-3142 Petiti0n for review of the Merit Systems Pr0tecti0n B0a1'd in case n0. ATO752100275-1-1 ON MOTION ORDER The Equa1 Emp10yment Opp0rtunity C0mIniSSi0n (EEOC) moves to reform the caption to name the Merit Systems Pr0tecti0n B0ard as the respondent EEOC also

MCNAlR V. MSPB 2 moves for leave to intervene. Jacqueline H. McNair opp0ses. McNair filed an appeal challenging her asserted removal from the Senior Executive Service (SES). The Board dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that Ms. McNair was removed during her one- year probationary period, and an agency’s removal of an appointee from the SES during a probationary period "is not appealable" to the Board. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(2), the Board is designated as the respondent when the Board's decision concerns the procedure or jurisdiction of the Board. In this case, the Board dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction Thus, the Board is the proper respondent in this petition for review. Accordingly, IT ls 0RDERED THAT: The motions to reform the official caption and to in- tervene are granted. The revised official caption is re- flected above. FoR THE CoURT 1 2 /s/ J an Horbal_v Date J an Horbaly Clerk FiLEl) °~Sis22eeiPaeer°“ cc: William Franklyn Joseph, Esq. Michael S. Macko, ESq. AUG 1 2 2011 Calvin MorroW, Esq. s21 .|AN HDRBALY CLERK

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

NOTE: This order is n0nprecedentia1. United States Court of AppeaIs for the FederaI Circuit JACQUELINE H. MCNAIR, Petitioner, V. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Resp0nden,t, AND EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, " In,tervenor. 2011-3142 Petiti0n for review of the Merit Systems Pr0tecti0n B0a1'd in case n0. ATO752100275-1-1 ON MOTION ORDER The Equa1 Emp10yment Opp0rtunity C0mIniSSi0n (EEOC) moves to reform the caption to name the Merit Systems Pr0tecti0n B0ard as the respondent EEOC also

MCNAlR V. MSPB 2 moves for leave to intervene. Jacqueline H. McNair opp0ses. McNair filed an appeal challenging her asserted removal from the Senior Executive Service (SES). The Board dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that Ms. McNair was removed during her one- year probationary period, and an agency’s removal of an appointee from the SES during a probationary period "is not appealable" to the Board. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(2), the Board is designated as the respondent when the Board's decision concerns the procedure or jurisdiction of the Board. In this case, the Board dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction Thus, the Board is the proper respondent in this petition for review. Accordingly, IT ls 0RDERED THAT: The motions to reform the official caption and to in- tervene are granted. The revised official caption is re- flected above. FoR THE CoURT 1 2 /s/ J an Horbal_v Date J an Horbaly Clerk FiLEl) °~Sis22eeiPaeer°“ cc: William Franklyn Joseph, Esq. Michael S. Macko, ESq. AUG 1 2 2011 Calvin MorroW, Esq. s21 .|AN HDRBALY CLERK

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

McNair v. Merit Systems Protection Board, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcnair-v-merit-systems-protection-board-cafc-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack