This morning the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion reviewing an order transferring an Equal Pay Act claim from the Eastern District of Louisiana to the Court of Federal Claims. The Federal Circuit also issued two nonprecedential opinions. The first comes in an employment case appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board, while the second comes in a trademark case appealed from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Finally, the court issued two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the Rule 36 judgments.
Metzinger v. Department of Veterans Affairs (Precedential)
Appellant Rebecca Metzinger, M.D., appeals from an order of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana transferring her Equal Pay Act (“EPA”) claim to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. We affirm.
Brock v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) removed Jason Brock from his position as an Air Transportation Systems Specialist based on two specifications for insubordination. Mr. Brock appealed the removal decision under the FAA’s Guaranteed Fair Treatment (GFT) appeal process—an appeal process unique to FAA personnel actions— but later withdrew his appeal due to timing issues related to the selection of arbitrators. On the same day he withdrew from the GFT appeal process, Mr. Brock appealed the removal decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Board dismissed Mr. Brock’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because, in the Board’s view, 49 U.S.C. § 40122(i) prohibits Mr. Brock from appealing his removal decision in more than one forum. On appeal, Mr. Brock argues that his choice to proceed with the GFT appeal was not knowing and informed and, therefore, the Board should not have dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. For the reasons below, we agree with Mr. Brock and therefore reverse the Board’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction and remand for the Board to consider the merits of Mr. Brock’s appeal.
Sunbio Corp. v. Biogrand Co. (Nonprecedential)
Sunbio Corporation appeals the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s cancellation of Sunbio’s “BF-7” mark for nutritional supplements. The Board cancelled the mark on the basis that Sunbio was not the owner of the BF-7 mark at the time of Sunbio’s application for registration because it had not used the mark. Sunbio appeals the cancellation on two grounds: (1) it did not have notice of the cancellation theory relied on by the Board until petitioner Biogrand Co. Ltd.’s reply brief at trial; and (2) substantial evidence does not support the Board’s finding of non-use. We conclude that Sunbio had sufficient notice of the argument ultimately accepted by the Board in cancelling Sunbio’s mark and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that Sunbio was not the owner of the mark due to non-use. We therefore affirm.