After the Air Force appealed a Federal Labor Relations Authority decision and order to bargain collectively with Air Force civilian employees over access to on-base commissaries and exchanges, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit granted the Air Force’s petition and vacated FLRA’s order.

On January 25, 2017, the United States Merit Systems Protection Board issued a document answering some “frequently asked questions” regarding the lack of Board “quorum,” or minimum number of members of the Board’s assembly.

After failing a pulmonary function test – a requirement imposed to maintain medical clearance – a Tennessee Valley Authority employee was discharged by the agency. After he brought a disability discrimination claim to district court under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, the agency moved for summary judgment, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction under Title VII’s “national-security exemption” and the “Egan doctrine.”

On January 3, 2017, the United States House of Representatives passed a House Resolution, adopting rules for the 115th Congress.

The Merit Systems Protection Board granted the petition for review of a former employee overpaid by $84,546.02, allowing the employee a major adjustment in his monthly repayment, and applying new language from the Office of Personnel Management on the nature of the employee’s ongoing debt.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the reviewing court of the Merit Systems Protection Board, reversed a Board decision denying relief for a personnel action taken by the Department of Justice, finding that the Board’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence.

On December 5, 2016, the Merit Systems Protection Board released a new report, entitled “Adverse Actions: A Compilation of Articles.”

The Merit Systems Protection Board appeal of a GS-13 Physical Security Specialist with the United States Navy was dismissed with prejudice after the MSPB found that the employee repeatedly failed to file a “perfected petition.”

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an MSPB decision finding that a GS-13 General Services Administration (“GSA”) employee who claimed that after a temporary promotion he continued to perform the duties of a GS-14 employee was not constructively demoted.

The Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”) clarified the legal requirements for proving an affirmative defense of EEO discrimination after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed that its use of the phrase “convincing mosaic,” considered a type of circumstantial evidence, was meant to be a metaphor, rather than a legal test.

The Merit Systems Protection Board vacated an administrative judge’s dismissal of a constructive suspension case after finding that the employee nonfrivolously alleged that she lacked a meaningful choice of whether to go to work against her doctor’s orders.

A former employee’s second Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (“USERRA”) appeal regarding an alleged hostile work environment was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the Merit Systems Protection Board as it found that re-litigating the issues on appeal was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

The Merit Systems Protection Board reversed the decision of an administrative judge, finding that actual knowledge of an employee’s protected whistleblowing disclosures is not the only way to show that the employee’s disclosures were a “contributing factor” for a personnel action.

A Department of Veterans Affairs employee who had been indefinitely suspended after a grand jury indictment related to the allegedly unauthorized closing of over 2,700 unresolved consults for medical care had his indefinite suspension upheld by the Merit Systems Protection Board.

Attesting that it has a substantial interest in a legal issue presented by Salazar v. Department of Veterans Affairs, the Office of Special Counsel filed a “friend of the court,” or amicus curiae, brief on August 3, 2016, with the Merit Systems Protection Board arguing that an employee who makes a disclosure in his normal course of duties should not be subject to an elevated standard when attempting to prove a prima facie case of whistleblower retaliation.

The Merit Systems Protection Board reversed the termination of a Department of Veterans Affairs employee who was terminated after the Agency discovered that a current probation agreement bound the employee to inform prospective employers of his status and prohibited the use of computers with online services and the use of data encryption.

On June 17, 2016, the Merit Systems Protection Board held that an appellant’s testimony during an Administrative Investigation Board (“AIB”) investigation is not protected activity under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(B), which protects agency employees that testify or lawfully assist individuals in the exercise of appeal, complaint, or grievance rights.

A Veterans Affairs police officer was charged with lack of candor, among other charges and specifications, and although the Board sustained the employee’s removal, it reversed the charge of Lack of Candor, clarifying the law in the process.