David POPE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Respondent

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that due process requires that charges be sufficiently detailed to al low the employee to make an informed reply
• explaining that this court will not disturb the Case: 20-2241 Document: 27 Page: 8 Filed: 03/04/2021 8 LALLISS v. DVA board’s credibility determinations unless they are “inher- ently improbable or discredited by undisputed fact”
• relying, in part, on 5 U.S.C. 7513(a) (restricting agencies to taking actions “only for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service”)
• explaining that, to support an adverse action, the agency must prove three things: that the charged conduct occurred, that there is a nexus between the conduct and the efficiency of the service, and that the penalty imposed is reasonable
• denying challenge to sufficiency of notice where appellant claims he was not provided “dates, times, and places”
• “As an appellate court, we are not in [a] position to re-evaluate these credibility determinations, which are not inherently improbable or discredited by undisputed fact.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).