This morning, the Federal Circuit issued five opinions: a precedential opinion in a patent case; two nonprecedential opinions involving the same appellant challenging separate decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board; a nonprecedential opinion in a veterans case; and a nonprecedential opinion in an employment law case challenging an arbitrator’s decision. Here are the introductions of the opinions.
Cap Export, LLC v. Zinus, Inc. (Precedential)
Zinus, Inc. (“Zinus”) appeals the decision of the United States District Court for the Central District of California setting aside a judgment and injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3). We affirm.
Oram v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Cyril D. Oram appealed his separation from federal employment alleging that it was an involuntary resignation and amounted to reprisal for his protected whistleblowing activity. The Merit Systems Protection Board dismissed Mr. Oram’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Oram now petitions for review before this court. For the reasons below, we affirm the Board’s decision.
Oram v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
Cyril D. Oram appealed his separation from federal employment requesting remedial action under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. Mr. Oram alleged that he was denied certain benefits of employment based in part on his prior military service and present status as a veteran. The Merit Systems Protection Board dismissed Mr. Oram’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Oram now petitions for review before this court. For the reasons below, we vacate and remand the Board’s decision.
Martin v. McDonough (Nonprecedential)
Victoria C. Martin appeals from a decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) denying her claim to status as a surviving spouse under 38 U.S.C. § 101(3) to Robert Martin, Sr., a deceased veteran. While Ms. Martin does not dispute that she was divorced from Mr. Martin at the time of his death, she argues that, because her divorce was precipitated by physical abuse at the hands of Mr. Martin, she is exempt from the statute’s requirement that the surviving spouse be married to the veteran at the time of his death to obtain benefits. See 38 U.S.C. § 101(3); 38 C.F.R. § 3.50(b)(1).
* * *
Given the clear language of the statute and our binding precedent, we decline to disturb the Veterans Court’s decision to deny Ms. Martin surviving-spouse status under 38 U.S.C. § 101(3). We have considered Ms. Martin’s remaining arguments and are unpersuaded; we accordingly affirm.
Martin v. Department of Homeland Security (Nonprecedential)
Clay Martin was removed from his position as a Deportation Officer with the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE or Agency) in the Department of Homeland Security in October 2018, based on four charges: conduct unbecoming a law enforcement officer, unauthorized use of a government database, unauthorized use of an agency resource, and lack of candor. Mr. Martin and the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 46 (the Union) invoked arbitration following removal. An arbitrator affirmed the Agency’s decision, finding that all four charges were supported by the evidence and the penalty of removal reasonable. S.A. 1–46. We affirm.