(a) Except as provided in § 2635.107, a violation of this part or of supplemental agency regulations may be cause for appropriate corrective or disciplinary action to be taken under applicable Governmentwide regulations or agency procedures. Such action may be in addition to any action or penalty prescribed by law.
(b) It is the responsibility of the employing agency to initiate appropriate disciplinary or corrective action in individual cases. However, corrective action may be ordered or disciplinary action recommended by the Director of the Office of Government Ethics under the procedures at part 2638 of this chapter.
(c) A violation of this part or of supplemental agency regulations, as such, does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any person against the United States, its agencies, its officers or employees, or any other person. Thus, for example, an individual who alleges that an employee has failed to adhere to laws and regulations that provide equal opportunity regardless of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), national origin, age, genetic information, or disability is required to follow applicable statutory and regulatory procedures, including those of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Notes of Decisions
Scherer v. United States, 241 F. Supp. 2d 1270 (D. Kan. 2003).
· cites it 2× “” 5 C.F.R. § 2635.106 (c). As such, the implementing regulations do not provide Mr.”
Lorillard Inc v. United States Food & Drug Admin., 56 F. Supp. 3d 37 (D.D.C. 2014).
“5 C.F.R. § 2635.106 (c). Defendants argue that the express language of this regulation bars plaintiffs from challenging whether the FDA complied with Part 2635, either through a private right of action or under the APA.”
Atkins v. Huddleson (N.D. Ala. 2025).
· cites it 2× “May 2, 2024) (citing 5 C.F.R. § 2635.106 (c) (“A violation of this part or of supplemental agency regulations, as such, does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any person against the United States, its agencies, its officers or…”
Freeman v. Raytheon Tech. Corp. (D. Colo. 2023).
“21, 2022) (same)); see also 5 C.F.R. § 2635.106 (c) (“A violation of this part of supplemental agency regulations, as such, does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any person against the United States, its agencies, its officers or…”
Atkins v. Vilt (W.D. Ky. 2021).
“5 C.F.R. § 2635.106 (c) (violation of Part 2635 “does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any person against the United States, its agencies, its officers or employees, or any other person”); see also Kubin v.”
Atkins v. Stivers (W.D. Ky. 2021).
“5 C.F.R. § 2635.106 (c) (violation of Part 2635 “does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any person against the United States, its agencies, its officers or employees, or any other person”); see also Kubin v.”
United States v. Google LLC (E.D. Va. 2023).
“2003) (explaining that there is no private right of action for enforcement of federal ethics violations); 5 C.F.R. § 2635.106 (c) (stating that a violation of the federal ethics rules “does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any…”
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.