609 F.2d 540 (D.C. Cir. 1979), 79-1307, Kyle v. I. C. C.

Docket Nº:79-1307, 79-1345 and 79-1505.
Citation:609 F.2d 540
Party Name:Richard W. KYLE, Petitioner, v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, Respondent. Robert L. OSWALD, Petitioner, v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION and Merit Systems Protection Board, Respondents. Paul A. STONE, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, Respondent.
Case Date:October 26, 1979
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 540

609 F.2d 540 (D.C. Cir. 1979)

Richard W. KYLE, Petitioner,

v.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, Respondent.

Robert L. OSWALD, Petitioner,

v.

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION and Merit Systems Protection

Board, Respondents.

Paul A. STONE, Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, Respondent.

Nos. 79-1307, 79-1345 and 79-1505.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

October 26, 1979

As Amended Jan. 8, 1980.

Page 541

On Motions to Dismiss.

William Kanter, Joseph B. Scott and Marleigh Dover Lang, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., were on the motions to dismiss for respondents.

Myles J. Ambrose, Washington, D. C., was on the opposition to the motions to dismiss for petitioners in Nos. 79-1307 and 79-1345.

Paul A. Stone was on the opposition to the motions to dismiss for petitioner pro se in No. 79-1505.

Before WRIGHT, Chief Judge, and LEVENTHAL [*] and WALD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion per curiam.

PER CURIAM:

In these cases, three federal employees have petitioned for review of the final orders of the Merit Systems Protection Board upholding agency adverse personnel actions. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because the savings provision of the Civil Service Reform Act precludes direct review in this court.

I.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Pub.L. No. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1111, which became effective on January 11, 1979, provides for review of final orders or decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board in the Court of Claims or a

United States Court of Appeals, 5 U.S.C.A. § 7703(b)(1) (Supp. 1979). A savings clause, however, makes the Act inapplicable to cases instituted before its effective date:

No provision of this Act shall affect any administrative proceedings pending at the time such provision takes effect. Orders shall be issued in such proceedings and appeals shall be taken therefrom as if this Act had not been enacted.

Page 542

Pub.L. No. 95-454, § 902(b), 92 Stat. 1111 (5 U.S.C.A. § 1101 note (Supp.1979)). In the interest of affording maximum rights to aggrieved employees, the Merit Systems Protection Board promulgated regulations construing the savings clause:

No provision of the Civil Service Reform Act shall be applied by the Board in such a way as to affect any administrative proceeding pending at the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP