PPP11 includes only those requirements that are specified in 2302(e)(1). For example,5 U.S.C. § 3304 (competitive examinations) is a statutory provision that is not specified in 2302(e)(1). Therefore, neither this statute nor its implementing regulations at 5 C.F.R. Part 337 (examining system) may form the basis for a claim that 2302(b)(11) has been violated. Ramsey v. Office of Personnel Management, 87 M.S.P.R. 98 (2000).
Does a statute’s exclusion from 2302(e)(1) preclude a VEOA claim based on that statute?
No. These are two separate provisions of law. Commission of a PPP under 2302(b)(11) is not necessary for a viable claim under VEOA. For example, an individual who believes that he or she was denied the right to compete for a vacancy under 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f) may pursue a claim under VEOA without alleging that the agency knowing violated one of statutes listed at 2302(e)(1). See, e.g., Walker v. Department of the Army, 104 M.S.P.R. 96 (2006) (failure to allow competition of veterans’ preference candidate under 5 U.S.C. § 3304(f) violated VEOA despite 3304’s exclusion from 2302(e)(1)).