No. 21-5877

Brian J. Neary v. Kiran Ahuja, Director, Office of Personnel Management, et al.

Lower Court: Second Circuit
Docketed: 2021-10-04
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: administrative-law age-discrimination article-1 employment-discrimination executive-order federal-excepted-service federal-hiring-authority legislative-authority pathways-program separation-of-powers
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw Arbitration ERISA CriminalProcedure Securities EmploymentDiscrimina Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2021-12-03
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Has the Executive Branch breached the Separation-of-Powers principle?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

Question(s) Presented 1.) Has the Executive Branch of the U.S. Federal government breached the ; ‘Separation of Powers’ Principle by issuing Presidential Executive Order #13562? Thus, unlawfully legislating from the Oval Office, and, exceeding its delegated administrative authority; in violation of Article I of the U.S. Constitution: “All Legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States” Whereby, creation of the Schedule-D Federal Excepted Service Hiring Authority has permanently established a fraudulent 2.) Does the Schedule-D Federal Excepted Service Hiring Authority PATHWAYS Recent Graduates Program employment advertising policy, managed by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, infringe upon 29 C.F.R. § 1625.4 (a) of the U.S. EEOC employment standards, rules, and regulations? 3.) Does the Schedule-D Federal Excepted Service Hiring Authority PATHWAYS Recent Graduates Program employment advertising policy, managed by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, violate 29 U.S.C. § 623 (e) of the ADEA? “Printing or publication of notice or advertisement indicating Preference, Limitation, etc” 4.) Is the Schedule-D Federal Excepted Service Hiring Authority PATHWAYS Recent Graduates Program recruitment & selection policy 2-year maximum Educational Qualification Limitation prerequisite for employment furtively infringing upon 29 U.S.C. § 623 (Section 4) A2 of the ADEA? 5.) Did the U.S. Office of Personnel Management deliberately violate federal oversight delegation authority 5 U.S.C. § 1104 (Subsection b) [2, 3], when Deputy Associate Director of Merit System Accountability and Compliance Ana A. Mazzi explicitly ordered all Federal Agency Human Resources Directors nationwide to exclude the Schedule-D PATHWAYS Programs from a government-wide audit of the Federal Excepted Service Hiring Authorities for effectiveness, compliance with federal law,government regulations, and the Merit System Principles; 5 U.S.C, § 2301 (Subsection b) (1),(2)? 6.) Is the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Judicial mandate of “Frivolity and Meritless . . . lacking an arguable basis in either fact or law” issued upon my [442] employment civil complaint a cursory, vague, unexplained and purely subjective ruling; by completely disregarding the double-standard evident within the exemption of the Schedule-D national federal hiring policy? 7.) Was the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York Order of Dismissal citing the Plaintiffs “Failure to State a Claim” an erroneous Judicial decision, as it pertains to my ‘Standing’ as an aggrieved federal job applicant ? i

Docket Entries

2021-12-06
Petition DENIED.
2021-11-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/3/2021.
2021-11-03
Waiver of right of respondent Ahuga, Dir., OPM, et al. to respond filed.
2021-09-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 3, 2021)

Attorneys

Ahuga, Dir., OPM, et al.
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Brian J. Neary
Brian J. Neary — Petitioner
Brian J. Neary — Petitioner