Oral ArgumentsAuthorities Latham, et al. Oral argument in the matters of: James C. Latham v. U.S. Postal Service MSPB Docket Number DA-0353-10-0408-I-1 Ruby N. Turner v. U.S. Postal Service MSPB Docket Number SF-0353-10-0329-I-1 Arleather Reaves v. U.S. Postal Service MSPB Docket Number CH-0353-10-0823-I-1 Cynthia E. Lundy v. U.S. Postal Service MSPB Docket Number AT-0353-11-0369-I-1 Marcella Albright v. U.S. Postal Service MSPB Docket Number DC-0752-11-0196-I-1 Tuesday, December 13, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Room 201 717 Madison Place, NW Washington, DC Latham et al. raise the following legal issues: (1) May a denial of restoration be “arbitrary and capricious” within the meaning of 5 C.F.R. § 353.304(c) solely for being in violation of the U.S. Postal Service’s own internal rules; and (2) what is the extent of the agency’s restoration obligation under its own internal rules, i.e., under what circumstances do the agency’s rules require it to offer a given task to a given partially recovered employee as modified work? Aguzie, et al. Oral argument in the matters of: Hyginus U. Aguzie v. Office of Personnel Management MSPB Docket Number DC-0731-09-0261-R-1 Jenee Ella Hunt-O'Neal v. Office of Personnel Management MSPB Docket Number AT-0731-09-0240-I-1 James A. Scott v. Office of Personnel Management MSPB Docket Number CH-0731-09-0578-I-1 Holley C. Barnes v. Office of Personnel Management MSPB Docket Number DC-0731-09-0260-R-1 Monday, October 18, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Room 201 717 Madison Place N.W., Washington D.C Aguzie and several other cases pending before the Board present the following legal issue: When the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) directs an agency to separate a tenured employee for suitability reasons, must the Board consider a subsequent appeal under 5 C.F.R. part 731 as contemplated therein, or should the Board instead consider the appeal under 5 U.S.C. chapter 75, given that the scope of a chapter 75 appeal is broader than a part 731 appeal and that OPM generally lacks authority to issue regulations limiting statutory rights? Audio Recording Conyers & Northover  Oral argument in the matters of: Rhonda K. Conyers v. Department of Defense MSPB Docket No. CH-0752-09-0925-I-1 Devon Northover v. Department of Defense MSPB Docket No. AT-0752-10-0184-I-1 Tuesday, September 21, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Room 201 717 Madison Place, N.W. Washington D.C. Conyers and Northover raise the question of whether, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. part 732, the rule in Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 530-31 (1988), limiting the scope of MSPB review of an adverse action based on the revocation of a security clearance, also applies to an adverse action involving an employee in a "non-critical sensitive" position due to the employee having been denied continued eligibility for employment in a sensitive position. Audio Recording |