James L. Worthington v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “the Board has no jurisdiction over Worthington’s underlying claim and therefore ... no jurisdiction over his back pay claim”
• holding that underlying violation, being forced to work a compressed work schedule in violation of the Federal Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act, does not fall within jurisdiction of CSRA
• stating that “Fausto deprives the Court of Federal Claims of jurisdiction over personnel actions covered by the CSRA”
• holding court was empowered to hear BPA claim arising from proeedurally improper reassignment to compressed work schedule
• being forced to work a compressed work schedule is not an adverse action within the Board’s jurisdiction
• being forced to work a compressed work schedule is not an adverse action within the Board’s jurisdiction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).