Beatrez v. Merit Systems Protection Board

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of AppeaIs for the FederaI Circuit DIANE L. BEATREZ, Petiti0ner, V. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Respondent. 2010-3145 Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in case no. CB121508()(]15-T-1. ON MOTION Before LINN, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Juc:lges. PROST, Circuit Judge. ORDER Diane Beatrez moves for a stay, pending review in this court, of the Merit Systems Protection Board’s May 14, 2010 order requiring the United States Coast Guard to suspend Beatrez without pay for ten days. The Merit Systems Protection B0ard moves for leave to intervene for purposes of moving to reform the official caption to desig- BEATREZ V. l\/lSPB 2 nate the Board as the respondent and opposes Beatrez’s motion to stay. Beatrez replies. Separately, Counsel for Beatrez moves without opposition for leave to withdraw as counsel and moves to stay the briefing schedule until Beatrez obtains new counsel. We treat the motion to stay the briefing schedule as a motion for an extension of time. The Administrative Judge dismissed the Office of Special Counsel’s complaint against Beatrez alleging that she violated 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(6) by granting a preference or advantage to a Coast Guard employee to improve his chances of obtaining a promotion. On review, the Board reversed the initial decision, determined that Beatrez violated § 2302(b)(6) by aiding or abetting another em- ployee who violated the statute, and ordered the Coast Guard to suspend her for ten days without pay. ln her motion, Beatrez asserts that she is suffering extreme and undue hardship because of her suspension_ Specifically, Beatrez states that her suspension will cause her shame and will damage her professional reputation. However, in Scrm,pson, v. Murray, 415 U.S. 6l, 89-92 (1974), the Supreme Court held that loss of federal em- ployment and earnings humiliation, or damage to one’s reputation are not irreparable harms warranting interim relief in a case involving discipline of a federal employee Accordingly, IT ls ORDERED THA'r: (1) The Board’s motions are granted. The revised of- ficial caption is reflected above. (2) Beatrez’s motion to stay her suspension pending review, is denied ' (3) The motion for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted. 3 BEATREZ V. l\/lSPB (4) The motion for an extension of time is granted in part. Beatrez’s brief is due within 90 days of the date of filing of this order. FOR THE COURT 0CT 26 2010 /s/ J an Horbaly Date J an Horbaly Clerk cc: Robert Bruce, Esq. Calvin M. Morrow, Esq. 320 "~isirifStftarr°“ OCT 26 2010 .IAN HORBALY CLERK