C.F.R. » Title 5 » CHAPTER I—OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT › SUBCHAPTER B—CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS › PART 351—REDUCTION IN FORCE › Subpart B—General Provisions

5 C.F.R. § 351.201

Use of regulations

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

(a)(1) Each agency is responsible for determining the categories within which positions are required, where they are to be located, and when they are to be filled, abolished, or vacated. This includes determining when there is a surplus of employees at a particular location in a particular line of work.

(2) Each agency shall follow this part when it releases a competing employee from his or her competitive level by furlough for more than 30 days, separation, demotion, or reassignment requiring displacement, when the release is required because of lack of work; shortage of funds; insufficient personnel ceiling; reorganization; the exercise of reemployment rights or restoration rights; or reclassification of an employee's position die to erosion of duties when such action will take effect after an agency has formally announced a reduction in force in the employee's competitive area and when the reduction in force will take effect within 180 days.

(b) This part does not require an agency to fill a vacant position. However, when an agency, at its discretion, chooses to fill a vacancy by an employee who has been reached for release from a competitive level for one of the reasons in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, this part shall be followed.

(c) Each agency is responsible for assuring that the provisions in this part are uniformly and consistently applied in any one reduction in force.

(d) An agency authorized to administer foreign national employee programs under section 408 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 3968) may include special plans for reduction in force in its foreign national employee programs. In these special plans an agency may give effect to the labor laws and practices of the locality of employment by supplementing the selection factors in subparts D and E of this part to the extent consistent with the public interest. Subpart I of this part does not apply to actions taken under the special plans authorized by this paragraph.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 68 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1967–2025 · leading case: Franca C. Monasteri v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 232 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Franca C. Monasteri v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 232 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2000). · cites it 7× “The administrative judge noted that, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 351.201 (d), FSN employees terminated as a result of an agency’s reduction in force may not appeal their terminations to the Board.”
Jacqueline P. Taylor v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. & Ricki Helfer, Chairman, Fdic, 132 F.3d 753 (D.C. Cir. 1997). · cites it 2× “How the reorganization possibly violated these requirements is not apparent, especially given the FDIC’s uncontroverted assertion that the reorganization did not constitute a reduction in force and hence was not governed by these sections.”
Elinor R. Bacon v. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 757 F.2d 265 (Fed. Cir. 1985). · cites it 6× “More particularly, petitioners argue that the stated reason, “workload and skills imbalances” is not one of the purposes authorized for a RIF by the controlling regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 351.201 (a). The cited regulation provides as follows: (a) Each agency shall follow this part…”
Clarence Seay, Jr. v. Tennessee Valley Auth. Craven Crowell, 339 F.3d 454 (6th Cir. 2003). “See 5 C.F.R. § 351.201 (a)(2) (“Each agency shall follow this part when it releases a competing employee from his or her competitive level .”
Michael J. Marcino v. United States Postal Serv., 344 F.3d 1199 (Fed. Cir. 2003). · cites it 3× “We held that despite the petitioner’s application for and acceptance of a lower grade position, the Board had jurisdiction over her appeal, because, under 5 C.F.R. § 351.201 (b), she had been “reached for release” before applying for a lower grade position.”
Daniel R. Krizman v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., & United States Postal Serv., Intervenor, 77 F.3d 434 (Fed. Cir. 1996). · cites it 3× “5 C.F.R. § 351.201 (a)(2). Pursuant to the RIF regulations, an employee in the competitive civil service who is demoted during a reorganization enjoys certain “RIF rights,” including the right to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board to challenge the manner in which the…”
Berney T. Wilburn v. Dep't of Transp., 757 F.2d 260 (Fed. Cir. 1985). · cites it 3× “Wilburn contends that DOT violated 5 C.F.R. § 351.201 (b) (1981) by not offering him the vacant position after Myers declined it.”
Diane Y. WASHINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. H. Lawrence GARRETT, III, Sec'y of the Navy, Defendant-Appellee, 10 F.3d 1421 (9th Cir. 1994). “5 C.F.R. § 351.201 (a)(2); 10 Losure v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 2 M.”
Peggy A. Knight v. Dep't of Def., 332 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2003). · cites it 3× “” Knight contends that her demotion to the GS-5 position was taken in conjunction with a RIF, which, pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 351.201 (a)(2) (emphasis added), occurs when an agency “releases a competing employee from his or her competitive level by furlough for more than 30 days,…”
Hayes v. United States Postal Serv., 390 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “2003), we justified the Harants exception by reference to 5 C.F.R. § 351.201 (b), which provides that RIF regulations must be followed if an employee has been “reached for release from a competitive level.”
Howard D. Cowan v. The United States, 710 F.2d 803 (Fed. Cir. 1983). “901 and 1201.3(a)(1). The board’s decision is therefore affirmed.”
Local 2855, AFGE (AFL-CIO) v. United States, 602 F.2d 574 (3rd Cir. 1979). · cites it 3× “First, plaintiffs contend that the RIFs were issued in contravention of 5 C.F.R. § 351.201 , which is said to delimit the situations in which a RIF may legally be issued to a government employee.”
Show all 68 citing cases →
— 5 C.F.R. § 351.201(a) — 1 case
Rossell v. Resor, 435 F.2d 865 (2d Cir. 1970).
— 5 C.F.R. § 351.201(a)(2) — 1 case
James L. Worthington v. Dep't of Agric., 865 F.2d 268 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
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.