Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Larry S. Jones v. Merit Systems Protection Board
Citations: 17 F.3d 1444; 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 14358; 1994 WL 19954Docket: 93-3509
Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; January 26, 1994; Federal Appellate Court
Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.6(b) prohibits the citation of nonprecedential opinions as precedent, though it does allow for issues like claim and issue preclusion to be raised based on such decisions. In the case of Larry S. Jones v. Merit Systems Protection Board, the court reviewed Jones's petition against the Board's dismissal of his appeal for lack of jurisdiction regarding his indefinite suspension by the United States Postal Service. Jones was suspended on March 30, 1992, and ordered to return to work on April 1, 1992. He did not report as directed, leading to a charge of absence without leave (AWOL). Although he appealed on April 21, 1992, the Administrative Judge (AJ) initially dismissed the appeal due to the Board's lack of jurisdiction since the suspension did not exceed fourteen days. After the Board remanded for a hearing on jurisdiction, the AJ again dismissed the case, determining that Jones had been properly notified of his return date. Jones argued he did not receive the notice until April 15, 1992, but the AJ found that the agency's use of both certified and first-class mail was reasonable and that the first-class notice was not returned undelivered. The AJ relied on the presumption of mail delivery within five days and concluded that Jones's suspension ended on April 7, 1992, thus lasting less than fourteen days. The court affirmed the AJ's decision, finding no error in the determination that the agency acted reasonably and that substantial evidence supported the conclusion regarding the notice's delivery. Mr. Jones argues that the Administrative Judge (AJ) neglected to consider Section 7 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO. This argument is deemed unfounded. Section 7 allows for an employee to be placed on an off-duty status without pay when allegations involve intoxication, theft, safety violations, or potential harm to property or individuals. The employee remains on the rolls until the case is resolved, and any suspension exceeding thirty days can be grieved separately. Mr. Jones was informed that his suspension would last until further notice but was not suspended for over thirty days. Consequently, the AJ was not required to consider the CBA as it did not impact the Board's jurisdiction. The Board does not have jurisdiction over appeals for suspensions of fourteen days or less, as outlined in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7512 (1988) and supported by case law.