5 C.F.R. § 1800.1

Scope and purpose

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

The purpose of this part is to implement the U.S. Office of Special Counsel's (OSC) authorities at 5 U.S.C. 1212-1216 and should be read in concert with these statutory provisions. This part does not create new individual rights but instead is intended to inform individuals of filing options they may be entitled to under 5 U.S.C. 1212-1216, and 2302. Individuals are encouraged to go to OSC's website at https://osc.gov for more information about the OSC complaint form that should be used when filing with OSC.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2024 · leading case: Lewis v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 594 F. App'x 974 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lewis v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 594 F. App'x 974 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “See 5 C.F.R. § 1800.1 (d) (explaining that a complaint alleging a Hatch Act violation may *979 be submitted in any written form).”

Gerald Krafsur v. Michael Davenport, 736 F.3d 1032 (6th Cir. 2013). “But the Special Counsel did not respond. According to the government, Krafsur’s letter did not comply with the federal regulations that establish a formal procedure for lodging complaints.”

Carson v. United States Off. of Special Couns., 563 F. Supp. 2d 286 (D.D.C. 2008). “See 5 C.F.R. § 1800.1 (c)(4); Peter B. Broida, A Guide to Merit Systems Protection Board Law & PRACTICE, Ch.”

Ferry v. Hayden, 954 F.2d 658 (11th Cir. 1992). “§ 1214 , nor the regulations, see 5 C.F.R. § 1800.1 , regarding the filing of complaints and allegations with the OSC place any time limit on the exercise of that right.”

Abel D. Garza v. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (MSPB 2016). “The appellant, however, may seek redress for this claim from the Office of Special Counsel pursuant to the procedures set forth at 5 C.F.R. § 1800.1 . 3 Given our finding that this was not a negative suitability determination, we need not consider what would be the effect on…”

James Fitzpatrick v. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (MSPB 2024). “5 C.F.R. § 1800.1 (c), (d). 7 Since the issuance of the initial decision in this matter, the Board may have updated the notice of review rights included in final decisions to provide a comprehensive summary of all available review options.”

Nat'l Ass'n of Gov't Inspectors, Unit 1 v. OPM & Dep't of the Navy (MSPB 2014). “104 (which, as explained above, the Board previously denied), or a prohibited personnel practice claim within the jurisdiction of the Office of Special Counsel, see 5 C.F.R. § 1800.1 (a)(12), (c). We therefore find that the petitioner has not articulated a regulation review…”

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.