This morning the Federal Circuit released two nonprecedential opinions in separate cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board. The Federal Circuit also released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal and two Rule 36 judgments. Here are the introductions to the opinions and links to the dismissal and Rule 36 judgments.

Cunningham v. Merit Systems Protection Board (Nonprecedential)

William Cunningham, after applying for a particular position at the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, received a letter from the Bureau dated November 19, 2015, “confirm[ing] [his] appointment” to the position but noting that his appointment was “contingent upon . . . receipt of all documents required for appointment.” Appx. 21. A Standard Form 50 (SF 50) notice of personnel action, executed on December 13, 2015, stated that the appointment was “subject to [the] completion of [a] one year initial probationary period beginning” that day. SAppx. 34 (box 45). Within that probationary period, the Bureau terminated Mr. Cunningham’s employment. Mr. Cunningham appealed his termination to the Merit Systems Protection Board, which dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and then petitioned this court for review. We affirm.

Davis v. Office of Personnel Management (Nonprecedential)

Mae Davis appeals a decision from the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) affirming the Office of Personnel Management’s (“OPM”) denial of her request for lumpsum death benefits under the Federal Employees’ Retirement System (“FERS”). Because the Board correctly concluded that the doctrine of substantial compliance does not apply to 5 U.S.C. § 8424(d)’s requirement that a beneficiary designation be signed, we affirm.


Rule 36 Judgments