(a) An RPL registrant is removed from the RPL at all registered grades or pay levels if the registrant:
(1) Declines or fails to reply to the agency's inquiry about an RPL offer of a career, career-conditional, or excepted appointment without time limit for a position having the same type of work schedule and a representative rate at least as high as the position from which the registrant was, or will be, separated;
(2) Receives a written cancellation, rescission, or modification to:
(i) The RIF separation notice or Certification of Expected Separation so that the employee no longer meets the conditions for RPL eligibility in § 330.203(a); or
(ii) The notification of cessation of injury compensation benefits so that injury compensation benefits continue;
(3) Separates from the agency for any other reason (such as retirement, resignation, or transfer) before the RIF separation effective date. Registration continues if the RPL registrant retires on or after the RIF separation effective date. This paragraph does not apply to an RPL registrant under § 330.203(b);
(4) Requests the agency to remove his or her name from the RPL;
(5) Is placed in a position without time limit at any grade or pay level within the agency;
(6) Is placed in a position under a career, career-conditional, or excepted appointment without time limit at any grade or pay level in any agency; or
(7) Leaves the area covered by an overseas RPL (see 5 CFR part 301) or is ineligible for continued overseas employment because of previous service or residence.
(b) An RPL registrant is removed from the RPL at registered grades or pay levels with a representative rate at and below the representative rate of a position offered by the agency if the offered position is below the last grade or pay level held and the registrant:
(1) Declines or fails to reply to the agency's inquiry about an RPL offer of a career, career-conditional, or excepted appointment without time limit for a position meeting the acceptable conditions shown on the RPL registrant's application; or
(2) Declines or fails to appear for a scheduled interview.
(c) An RPL registrant removed from the RPL under paragraph (b) of this section at lower grades or pay levels than the last grade or pay level held remains on the RPL for positions with a representative rate higher than the offered position up to the grade or pay level last held, unless registration expires or otherwise terminates.
(d) Declination of time-limited employment does not affect RPL eligibility.
Notes of Decisions
John F. Roberto v. Dep't of the Navy, 440 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
· cites it 7× “” Employee appeal rights are established by 5 C.F.R. § 330.209 , which provides: An individual who believes that his or her reemployment priority rights under this subpart have been violated because of the employment of another person who otherwise could not have been appointed…”
Michael Carley v. Dep't of the Army, 413 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
· cites it 5× “5 C.F.R. § 330.209 (2005). The Board has found , that it possesses jurisdiction to review violations of reemployment priority rights under a PPP when an agency maintains a PPP in lieu of a distinct RPL.”
Jerry C. Sturdy v. Dep't of the Army, 440 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
· cites it 5× “On remand, the Board (with its full complement of Members) deferred to the view of OPM that separation by an RIF was not necessary for jurisdiction over an appeal of RPL rights under 5 C.F.R. § 330.209 . Sturdy II, 88 M.S.P.”
Romeo M. Rasing v. Dep't of the Navy, 444 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
· cites it 5× “Rasing been registered, the Board had no jurisdiction under 5 C.F.R. § 330.209 over his appeal. Id. In response to Mr.”
George Noble v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 892 F.2d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
· cites it 2× “Likewise, the appeal right set forth in 5 C.F.R. § 330.209 , which provides that “[a]n individual who believes that his or her reemployment priority rights under this subpart have been violated .”
Gregory K. Roberts v. Dep't of the Army, 168 F.3d 22 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
· cites it 3× “DISCUSSION 5 C.F.R. § 330.209 (1998) states that an “individual who believes that his or her reemployment priority rights under this sub-part [Reemployment Priority List (RPL)] have been violated because of the employment of another person who otherwise could not have been…”
Janice M. White v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 213 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
· cites it 2× “The relevant jurisdictional regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 330.209 , provides: An individual who believes that his or her reemployment priority rights under this subpart have been violated because of the employment of another person who otherwise could not have been appointed properly…”
Gallo v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. 593 (Fed. Cl. 2007).
“5 C.F.R. § 330.209 (2007). Thus, competitive service employees such as Ms.”
Roberto v. Dept. Of the Navy (Fed. Cir. 2006).
· cites it 6× “” Employee appeal rights are established by 5 C.F.R. § 330.209 , which provides: An individual who believes that his or her reemployment priority rights under this subpart have been violated because of the employment of another person who otherwise could not have been appointed…”
Terrol Prather v. Dep't of the Army (MSPB 2022).
· cites it 3× “The DOD PPP Handbook provides that, in the case of “substantiated” conduct or performance problems, eligibility for the PPP will be withheld for a period of time to ensure that the necessary corrective measures have had their intended effect. What does the term “substantiated”…”
Sturdy v. Dept. Of the Army (Fed. Cir. 2006).
· cites it 5× “On remand, the Board (with its full complement of Members) deferred to the view of OPM that separation by an RIF was not necessary for jurisdiction over an appeal of RPL rights under 5 C.F.R. § 330.209 . Sturdy II, 88 M.S.P.”
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.