C.F.R. » Title 12 » CHAPTER III—FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION › SUBCHAPTER B—REGULATIONS AND STATEMENTS OF GENERAL POLICY › PART 336—FDIC EMPLOYEES › Subpart B—Minimum Standards of Fitness for Employment With the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

12 C.F.R. § 336.8

Sanctions and remedial actions

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Any employee found not in compliance with the minimum standards except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section below shall be terminated and prohibited from providing further service for or on behalf of the FDIC in any capacity. No other remedial action is authorized for sanctions for noncompliance.

(b) Any employee found not in compliance with the minimum standards under § 336.5(a)(3) based on financial irresponsibility as defined in § 336.3(i)(1) shall be terminated consistent with applicable procedures and prohibited from providing future services for or on behalf of the FDIC in any capacity, unless the employee brings him or herself into compliance with the minimum standards as provided in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.

(1) Upon written notification by the Corporation of financial irresponsibility, the employee will be allowed a reasonable period of time to establish an agreement that satisfies the creditor and the FDIC as to resolution of outstanding indebtedness or otherwise resolves the matter to the satisfaction of the FDIC prior to the initiation of a termination action.

(2) As part of the agreement described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the employee shall provide authority to the creditor to report any violation by the employee of the terms of the agreement directly to the FDIC Ethics Counselor.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2015–2015 · leading case: Paul D. Jonson v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 2015 MSPB 36 (MSPB 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Paul D. Jonson v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 2015 MSPB 36 (MSPB 2015). · cites it 2× “” 12 C.F.R. § 336.8 (a). ¶3 This is the second time we have considered the appellant’s removal.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.