§

Kristofer D.,1 Complainant, v. Dr. Mark T. Esper, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

0720170019 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 3, 2018)
Kristofer D.,1 Complainant, v. Dr. Mark T. Esper, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

4 Cited authorities

  1. Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    340 U.S. 474 (1951)   Cited 9,642 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "

  2. Pullman-Standard v. Swint

    456 U.S. 273 (1982)   Cited 1,622 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[w]hen an appellate court discerns that a district court has failed to make a finding because of an erroneous view of the law, the usual rule is that there should be a remand for further proceedings to permit the trial court to make the missing findings"

  3. Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government

    42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16   Cited 5,002 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Adopting provisions of § 2000e-5(f)-(k), including that "[e]ach United States district court . . . shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter"

  4. Section 335.103 - Agency promotion programs

    5 C.F.R. § 335.103   Cited 45 times

    (a)Merit promotion plans. Except as otherwise specifically authorized by OPM, an agency may make promotions under § 335.102 of this part only to positions for which the agency has adopted and is administering a program designed to insure a systematic means of selection for promotion according to merit. These programs shall conform to the requirements of this section. (b)Merit promotion requirements - (1)Requirement 1. Each agency must establish procedures for promoting employees that are based on