Peterson v. Department of Energy
| Citation | 737 F.2d 1021 |
| Decision Date | 15 June 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-1035,84-1035 |
| Parties | Catherine L. PETERSON, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, Respondent. Appeal |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit |
Before RICH, DAVIS and BALDWIN, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner, Catherine L. Peterson (Peterson), by this appeal seeks review of the accounting method employed by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) for calculating attorney fees pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7701(g). Peterson is represented by the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU).
NTEU, on April 23, 1984, moved this court to add the MSPB as party-respondent in the above captioned case, seeking to correct its naming of the Department of Energy (DOE), the employing agency, as respondent, in light of the recent ruling of this court in Hopkins v. MSPB, 725 F.2d 1368, 1372 n. 3 (1984).
Also, on April 24, 1984, the MSPB and DOE jointly moved for a ruling that DOE, the agency which took the underlying personnel action, is the proper respondent.
The footnote in Hopkins relied on reads:
3. While we need not reach the issue here, we believe it useful to address the question of who is respondent in appeals to this court for review of MSPB decisions granting or denying attorney fee requests "in the interest of justice" under Sec. 7701(g)(1). This issue would have arisen here, for example, if Hopkins had timely filed his fee request, the MSPB had rejected it on the merits, and he had appealed that rejection to this court. In that situation, for the same reasons as enunciated above, we believe that the MSPB should be named respondent since it is the "agency responsible for taking the action"-- i.e., requiring the employing agency to pay attorney fees. Sec. 7701(g)(1). We recognize that the plain language of Sec. 7703(a)(2), referring to a final order or decision "issued by the Board under section 7701," could be construed the other way, since attorney fee requests are filed under Sec. 7701. Nevertheless, the "agency responsible for taking the action" is not the employing agency but the MSPB, where "action" is interpreted to mean action on the attorney fee request.
NTEU interprets this footnote, saying,
While the footnote referred to is admittedly dictum, it follows the dispositive reasoning of the case which held, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spruill v. Merit Systems Protection Bd.
...action" was that of the MSPB. See Hopkins v. Merit Systems Protection Bd., 725 F.2d 1368, 1372 (Fed.Cir.1984); Peterson v. Department of Energy, 737 F.2d 1021, 1022 (Fed.Cir.1984), cert. denied 469 U.S. 1189, 105 S.Ct. 960, 83 L.Ed.2d 966 (1985); cf. Tiffany v. Department of Navy, 795 F.2d ......
-
Hagmeyer v. Department of Treasury
...in banc action overrules our holdings in Hopkins v. Merit Sys. Protection Bd., 725 F.2d 1368 (Fed.Cir.1984), and Peterson v. Department of Energy, 737 F.2d 1021 (Fed.Cir.1984). These cases have been the authority for naming the MSPB as respondent in appeals of its decisions relating to time......
-
Van Fossen v. Merit Systems Protection Bd.
...711 F.2d at 1567-68.8 Hopkins v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 725 F.2d 1368, 1371-72 (Fed.Cir.1984), and Peterson v. Department of Energy, 737 F.2d 1021 (Fed.Cir.1984), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 960, 83 L.Ed.2d 966 (1985), mandate that, in fee cases, the MSPB be the responde......
-
Keely v. Merit Systems Protection Bd.
...apparently because of Hopkins v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 725 F.2d 1368, 1371-72 (Fed.Cir.1984), and Peterson v. Department of Energy, 737 F.2d 1021 (Fed.Cir.1984), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 960, 83 L.Ed.2d 966 (1985). The situation in this case may illustrate another re......