5 C.F.R. § 351.901
Appeals
An employee who has been furloughed for more than 30 days, separated, or demoted by a reduction in force action may appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 57
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1970–2026 · leading case: Terrie G. Reid v. Dep't of Com., 793 F.2d 277 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Terrie G. Reid v. Dep't of Com., 793 F.2d 277 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “§ 3502 in a reduction in force, the Office of Personnel Management has promulgated 5 C.F.R. § 351.901 (1986). 9 Accordingly, we examine these statutory and regulatory provisions, as well as § 7703(a)(1), to determine whether the Union is, within the intendment of Congress, a…”
David M. Thomas v. The United States, 709 F.2d 48 (Fed. Cir. 1983). “Thomas relies on 5 C.F.R. § 351.901 (1983) 3 as providing the necessary authority for the MSPB to review his case under 5 C.”
Howard D. Cowan v. The United States, 710 F.2d 803 (Fed. Cir. 1983). “3 to frustrate other APHIS or OPM regulations which permit reductions in force and give affected employees specific, limited rights.”
Michael J. Marcino v. United States Postal Serv., 344 F.3d 1199 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “” 5 C.F.R. § 351.901 (2003). The petitioner contends that his assignment to the level 5 position constituted a demotion from his level 6 position.”
Elias Covington v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 750 F.2d 937 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “In response to an order to show cause, Covington asserted that his appeal satisfied the requirements of 5 C.F.R. § 351.901 , that he had been terminated by a RIF action, and that his retirement was involuntary and not of his own choosing.”
Peggy A. Knight v. Dep't of Def., 332 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “The AJ concluded that the Board lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Knight’s appeal as a reduction-in-force (“RIF”) action under 5 C.F.R. § 351.901 because Knight was not demoted by RIF action, but voluntarily applied for and accepted the GS-5 position.”
Michael J. Wolf v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 317 F.3d 1395 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “Wolf does not satisfy the conditions of 5 C.F.R. § 351.901 , which limits RIF appeals to employees who are furloughed for more than thirty days, separated, or demoted by the RIF action, we affirm.”
Hayes v. United States Postal Serv., 390 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “The Board’s jurisdiction over RIF-related appeals is provided in 5 C.F.R. § 351.901 , which states that “[a]n employee who has been furloughed for more than 30 days, separated, or demoted by a reduction in force action may appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board.”
Lodge 1858, Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. Thomas O. Paine, Adm'r, Nat'l Aeronautics & Space Admin., 436 F.2d 882 (D.C. Cir. 1970). “307(c) (1969) 94 5 C.F.R. 351.901 (1969) 95 5 C.F.R. 772.301, 722.”
George Noble v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 892 F.2d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 1989). “In Dodd we held that a preference eligible could appeal to the MSPB on the basis of an alleged violation by the TVA of his retention priority rights as provided by 5 C.F.R. § 351.901 (1988). Retention rights, however, are separate and distinct from the reemployment rights Noble…”
Gary F. Mueller, Jerry E. Shechtman & Andrew T. Nulty v. United States Postal Serv., & Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., Intervenor, 76 F.3d 1198 (Fed. Cir. 1996). “See 5 C.F.R. § 351.901 . None of the petitioners was entitled to an advisement of rights under that regulation, because no appealable RIF action was ever taken against any of them; each retired before any action was taken that would have qualified as an appealable RIF action.”
Michael Carley v. Dep't of the Army, 413 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “” 5 C.F.R. § 351.901 (2005). But Mr. Carley does not assert that he has been subjected to these actions under the RIF.”
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.