Error: Expected the default config, but wasn't able to find it, or it isn't a Dictionary
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2007-3021
MARIA E. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
v.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
Respondent,
and
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
Intervenor.
ON MOTION
Before RADER, Circuit Judge.
ORDER
The Merit Systems Protection Board moves for leave to intervene and moves to
reform the caption to designate the Board as the respondent. The Board states that Maria
E. Williams opposes. The Department of the Army opposes and moves, in the alternative,
for leave to intervene.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(2), the Board is designated as the respondent when
the Board's decision concerns the procedure or jurisdiction of the Board. The employing
agency is designated as the respondent when the Board reaches the merits of the
underlying case.
Williams filed an appeal at the Board alleging that her resignation from her position
of administrative support assistant was involuntary. The Administrative Judge determined
that she had not demonstrated that her resignation was involuntary and dismissed the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because the Board held that it did not have jurisdiction, it
did not address the merits of her case. See Garcia v. Department of Homeland Security,
437 F.3d 1322, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (en banc) (“In a constructive action case, the
jurisdictional fact at issue is almost always whether the facially voluntary action was
involuntary. Involuntariness is essential for jurisdiction and it must be proven by the
claimant. But while jurisdiction is established under 5 U.S.C. § 7512, the merits of the
case are determined by the agency’s compliance with § 7513(a)-(b). In other words, the
jurisdictional determination is not identical to the merits determination.”).
Because the Board determined that it lacked jurisdiction, the Board is the proper
respondent.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The Board’s motions are granted. The revised official caption is reflected
above.
(2) The Army’s motion for leave to intervene is granted.
(3) The Board and the Army should calculate the due date for their briefs from
the date of filing of this order.
February 15, 2007 /s/ Randall R. Rader
Date Randall R. Rader
Circuit Judge
cc: Maria E. Willams
John S. Groat, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Gauger, Esq. (copy of petitioner’s informal brief enclosed)
s17
2007-3021 2