5 C.F.R. § 353.302
Retention protections
An injured employee enjoys no special protection in a reduction in force. Separation by reduction in force or for cause while on compensation means the individual has no restoration rights.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2024 · leading case: Bey v. Bolger, 540 F. Supp. 910 (E.D. Pa. 1982).
Bey v. Bolger, 540 F. Supp. 910 (E.D. Pa. 1982). “Should such recommended cor *914 rective action result in the appellant being restored to employment, such restoration must be retroactive to the time frame prescribed by 5 CFR 353.302. Should such recommended corrective action result in a new determination that the appellant is…”
Farrell v. Reno, 983 F. Supp. 1099 (M.D. Fla. 1997). “Although numbered differently prior to 1986, 5 C.F.R. Parts 353.302 and 353.304 require an agency to restore only fully recovered employees to service.”
Theresa Bowman v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2022). “2010) (per curiam); 5 C.F.R. § 353.302 . A valid reason for separation, unrelated to a compensable injury, precludes restoration rights, even if the separation also was related to a compensable injury.”
Terri Smith v. Dep't of Transp. (MSPB 2024). “ID at 14-16; see 5 C.F.R. § 353.302 (a)-(b), (d). She found, however, that the Board lacks jurisdiction over her claim because the appellant did not meet the definition of “fully recovered” and the agency never denied her request for restoration as a partially recovered employee.”
Marassa v. United States Postal Serv., 287 F. App'x 878 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “Marassa “was removed, effective June 13, 1989, for unauthorized absence,” and under 5 C.F.R. § 353.302 , “[a]n employee who has been removed for cause rather than a compensable injury is not entitled to restoration.”
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.