(a) The Reemployment Priority List (RPL) is a required component of an agency's placement programs to assist its current and former competitive service employees who will be or were separated by reduction in force (RIF) under part 351 of this chapter, or who have recovered from a compensable work-related injury after more than 1 year, as required by part 353 of this chapter. In filling vacancies, an agency must give its RPL registrants placement priority for most competitive service vacancies before hiring someone from outside its own permanent competitive service workforce. An agency may choose to consider RPL placement priority candidates before other agency permanent competitive service employees under its Career Transition Assistance Plan (CTAP) established under subpart F of this part, after fulfilling agency obligations to its CTAP selection priority candidates.
(b) Agencies must use an RPL to give placement priority to their:
(1) Current competitive service employees with a specific notice of RIF separation or a Certification of Expected Separation issued under part 351 of this chapter;
(2) Former competitive service employees separated by RIF under part 351 of this chapter; and
(3) Former competitive service employees fully recovered from a compensable injury (as defined in part 353 of this chapter) after more than 1 year.
(c) All agency components within the local commuting area use a single RPL and are responsible for giving placement priority to the agency's RPL registrants.
(d) With prior OPM approval, an agency may operate an alternate placement program which satisfies the basic requirements of this subpart, including veterans' preference, as an exception to the RPL regulations under this subpart. This provision is limited to reemployment priority because of RIF separation and allows agencies to adopt different placement strategies that are effective for their programs and satisfy employee entitlements to reemployment priority.
Notes of Decisions
John F. Roberto v. Dep't of the Navy, 440 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
· cites it 7× “In his appeal, he claimed that his re-employment priority rights under 5 C.F.R. § 330.201 were violated because the Navy hired a person for the permanent Air Conditioning Equipment Mechanic position who otherwise would not have been hired had Mr.”
King v. Dep't of the Navy, 167 F. App'x 191 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
· cites it 5× “The Board rejected King’s argument that the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) regulation at 5 C.F.R. § 330.201 (a) required the Agency to give King priority over Department of Defense (“DoD”) employees for positions which were available earlier in the period, reasoning that…”
Peter R. Kachanis, Jr. v. Dep't of the Treasury, 212 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
· cites it 2× “Kachanis notes, for example, that under 5 C.F.R. § 330.201 , the agency enjoys full discretion to deny such workers priority over internal candidates.”
Jonathan W. Chudson v. Env't Prot. Agency, 17 F.3d 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
· cites it 3× “Pursuant to this settlement and 5 C.F.R. § 330.201 , Chudson was placed on the agency’s Reemployment Priority List (RPL).”
Romeo M. Rasing v. Dep't of the Navy, 444 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
· cites it 3× “The DOD PPP has not been approved by OPM under 5 C.F.R. § 330.201 (c). The record contains Mr.”
Michael Carley v. Dep't of the Army, 413 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
“5 C.F.R. § 330.201 (c) (2005). Under this theory, if an agency chooses to use a PPP in lieu of RPL rights, the .”
Black v. Tomlinson, 425 F. Supp. 2d 101 (D.D.C. 2006).
· cites it 2× “” See 5 C.F.R. § 330.201 (a). As provided in the regulations governing RPLs, Black’s listing entitled her to “priority consideration over certain outside job applicants,” and at the agency’s discretion, priority over internal candidates.”
Jerry C. Sturdy v. Dep't of the Army, 440 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
“Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 330.201 (b), “[e]ach agency is required to establish and maintain a reemployment priority list for each commuting area in which it separates eligible competitive service employees by RIF.”
Gregory K. Roberts v. Dep't of the Army, 168 F.3d 22 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
“5 C.F.R. § 330.201 (a) (1998) defines the Reemployment Priority List as the mechanism agencies use to give reemployment consideration to their former competitive service employees separated by RIF or fully recovered from a compensable injury after more than one year.”
Farrell v. Reno, 983 F. Supp. 1099 (M.D. Fla. 1997).
· cites it 2× “5 C.F.R. § 330.201 ' (1986) governs all RPLs and provides: “(A) The re-employment priority list (RPL) is the mechanism.”
Roberto v. Dept. Of the Navy (Fed. Cir. 2006).
· cites it 8× “See 5 C.F.R. § 330.201 (a) (2005).1 Following a hearing, the administrative judge (“AJ”) to whom the appeal was assigned dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.”
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.