An employee must meet the conditions in either paragraph (a) or (b) of this section to be an RPL eligible.
(a) For eligibility based on part 351 of this chapter, the employee:
(1) Must be serving in an appointment in the competitive service in tenure group I or II;
(2) Must have received either a specific notice of separation or a Certification of Expected Separation under part 351 of this chapter that has not been cancelled, rescinded, or modified so that the employee is no longer under notice of separation;
(3) Must have received a rating of record of at least fully successful (Level 3) or equivalent as the most recent performance rating of record; and
(4) Must not have declined an offer under part 351, subpart G, of this chapter of a position with the same type of work schedule and with a representative rate at least as high as that of the position from which the employee will be separated.
(b) For eligibility based on part 353 of this chapter, the employee or former employee:
(1) Must be serving in, or separated from, an appointment in the competitive service in tenure group I or II;
(2) Must either have accepted a position at a lower grade or pay level in lieu of separation or have been separated because of a compensable injury or disability. (For the purposes of this subpart, any reference to the position from which an individual was or will be separated includes the position from which the RPL eligible accepted the lower graded or pay level position under this paragraph.);
(3) Must have fully recovered more than 1 year after compensation began; and
(4) Must have received notification from the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Department of Labor, that injury compensation benefits have ceased or will cease.
Notes of Decisions
John F. Roberto v. Dep't of the Navy, 440 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
· cites it 7× “Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 330.203 (b), at the time employees receive notices of separation or Certifications of Expected Separation (“CES”)s, “the agency must give each eligible employee information about the RPL, including appeal rights.”
Jerry C. Sturdy v. Dep't of the Army, 440 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
· cites it 8× “Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 330.203 (b), at the time employees receive notices of separation or Certifications of Expected Separation (“CES”)s, “the agency must give each eligible employee *1332 information about the RPL, including appeal rights.”
Romeo M. Rasing v. Dep't of the Navy, 444 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 330.203 (b), at the time employees receive notices of separation or Certifications of Expected Separation, “the agency must give each eligible employee information about the RPL, including appeal rights.”
George Noble v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 892 F.2d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
“Subpart 330 covers only those individuals seeking reemployment within the “competitive” service, 5 C.F.R. § 330.203 , from which the TVA is excepted.”
Jonathan W. Chudson v. Env't Prot. Agency, 17 F.3d 380 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
“, employees who have not been placed in another position pursuant to the RIF rules) 1 , *383 see 5 C.F.R. § 330.203 , and employees separated because of a compensable injury or disability, see 5 C.”
Sturdy v. Dept. Of the Army (Fed. Cir. 2006).
· cites it 9× “Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 330.203 (b), at the time employees receive notices of separation or Certifications of Expected Separation (“CES”)s, “the agency must give each eligible employee information about the RPL, including appeal rights.”
Roberto v. Dept. Of the Navy (Fed. Cir. 2006).
· cites it 6× “Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 330.203 (b), at the time employees receive notices of separation or Certifications of Expected Separation (“CES”)s, “the agency must give each eligible employee information about the RPL, including appeal rights.”
Smith v. Dep't of the Army, 139 F. App'x 275 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
· cites it 4× “Smith failed to make a nonfrivolous allegation that the agency violated his RPL rights because, pursuant to its interpretation of 5 C.F.R. § 330.203 (d)(2)(ii), Mr. Smith’s eligibility for RPL rights expired on October 30, 1998, the effective date Mr.”
Wilson v. Dep't of Def., 10 F. App'x 893 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
· cites it 4× “He argued that the agency’s failure to place him on the RPL and the PPP list violated his reemployment rights under 5 C.F.R. §§ 330.203 and 330.204. The Board remanded the claim to its Atlanta Regional Office so that it could be addressed there in the first instance.”
Rasing v. Dep't of the Navy (Fed. Cir. 2006).
· cites it 3× “Pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 330.203 (b), at the time employees receive notices of separation or Certifications of Expected Separation, “the agency must give each eligible employee information about the RPL, including appeal rights.”
Terri Smith v. Dep't of Transp. (MSPB 2024).
“See 5 C.F.R. §§ 330.203 (b)(2), 353.301(b). Because the appellant had not been separated from her Support Services Specialist position in February 2018, we find that the agency should have attempted to return her to duty in that position, just as it did in July 2016, including…”
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.