(e.g., asthma, diabetes, epilepsy, etc.). Definition under the Family and Medical Leave Act in Certification of Health Care (form provided by the United States Department of Labor), for Ms. Malloy by Dr. Sarah Nyland, at 4. 2 . This court has long held: “It is not reversible error if the Board fails expressly to discuss all of the Douglas factors. The Board need only determine that the agency considered the factors significant to the particular case.” Kumferman v. Dep’t of Navy, 785 F.2d 286, 291 (Fed.Cir.1986) (citations omitted); see also Connolly v. Dep’t of Justice, 766 F.2d 507, 514 (Fed.Cir.1985) (“[I]t is not per se reversible error for the board not to address the Douglas factors specifically.”); Nagel v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 101 F.2d 1384, 1386-87 (Fed.Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). In this case, the decision of the MSPB
holding that the race of the prosecutor is irrelevant holding that the phra is construed consistently with interpretations of title vii and applying mcdonnell douglas holding that a district court is not required to make a specific finding of manifest necessity or articulate on the record all the factors which informed the deliberate exercise of its discretion as long as the record as a whole provides sufficient justification for the ruling holding that the board is not required to articulate irrelevant factors when applying the douglas analysis recognizing that among other factors the location and level of the precedent as well as its age are important factors in a qualified immunity analysis