Norris v. Securities & Exchange Commission

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’s penalty assessment must account for any post–adverse action mitigation evidence that was not available to the agency
• holding that, in assessing whether the penalty was reasonable, the Board must consider new, post -removal mitigation evidence that was not available to the agency
• finding that it is not required that a deciding official be unfamiliar with the employee, the facts of the case, or the employee’s prior conduct
• finding that, in assessing whether the penalty was reasonable, the Board must consider new, post-removal mitigation evidence that was not available to the agency
• recognizing that “the Board determines de novo the underlying facts of the case such as whether the employee engaged in the alleged misconduct and whether the agency exceeded its authority in determining that the employee’s misconduct would adversely affect the efficiency of the service”
• finding that a deciding official’s mere knowledge of an employee’s earlier misconduct obtained before starting disciplinary proceedings was not new and material information and did not constitute an improper ex parte communication

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).