Opinion ID: 2313743
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Saint-Preux Decision

Text: In Saint-Preux, we reviewed a decision of the Superior Court affirming an order of the [OEA] in a personnel action brought by [ ] a non-attorney former employee of [PDS]. Id. at 1161. We likewise affirmed, holding that [the] OEA's interpretation of the CMPA as covering PDS nonattorney employees [was] reasonable and consistent with both the statutory language and the legislative purpose. Id. [6] In the Notice of Final Decision issued in this case, the Director of PDS explained that [e]mployees of PDS are covered by the CMPA pursuant to Public Defender Service v. Saint-Preux, 691 A.2d 1160 (D.C.1997). When we decided Saint-Preux, Congress had yet to pass the Revitalization Act. Compare Saint-Preux (decided April 3, 1997), with The Revitalization Act, 111 Stat. 251 (enacted August 5, 1997). We now must decide whether the Revitalization Act and the 1998 Amendments changed the status of PDS in a way that eliminated OEA's jurisdiction over PDS personnel decisions.