5 C.F.R. § 353.101

Scope

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

The rights and obligations of employees and agencies in connection with leaves of absence or restoration to duty following uniformed service under 38 U.S.C. 4301 et. seq., and restoration under 5 U.S.C. 8151 for employees who sustain compensable injuries, are subject to the provisions of this part. Subpart A covers those provisions that are common to both of the above groups of employees. Subpart B deals with provisions that apply just to uniformed service and subpart C covers provisions that pertain just to injured employees.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2006–2022 · leading case: Gallo v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. 593 (Fed. Cl. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gallo v. United States, 76 Fed. Cl. 593 (Fed. Cl. 2007). · cites it 4× “Title 5 C.F.R. § 353.101 , which defines the scope of that Part, states, in relevant part, as follows: The rights and obligations of employees and agencies in connection with leaves of absence or restoration to duty .”

Razote v. Potter, 833 F. Supp. 2d 913 (N.D. Ill. 2011). “See 5 C.F.R. § 353.101 (c) (providing that an employee who is physically disqualified from his position is entitled to be placed in another position for which he is qualified, while, to the extent possible, keeping the same status and pay.”

Theresa Bowman v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2022). “IAF, Tabs 1, 5, 8, 11; PFR File, Tab 1; see 5 C.F.R. § 353.101 -.102. In addition, to establish jurisdiction over a denial of restoration rights appeal as a partially recovered employee or an employee who is fully recovered after 1 year, an appellant must nonfrivolously allege,…”

Burnett v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 251 F. App'x 678 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “Burnett misconstrues the statute and regulation, for although 5 C.F.R. § 353.101 contains regulations applying to appeals under either USERRA or 5 U.”

Williams v. Opm (Fed. Cir. 2006). “2 See also 5 C.F.R. § 353.101 (“The rights and obligations of employees and agencies in connection with .”

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.