5 C.F.R. § 731.303
Answer
(a) Respondent's answer. A respondent may answer the charges in writing and furnish documentation and/or affidavits in support of the answer. To be timely, a written answer must be submitted no more than 30 days after the date of the notice of proposed action.
(b) Agency's answer. An employing agency may also answer the notice of proposed action. The time limit for filing such an answer is 30 days from the date of the notice. In reaching a decision, OPM will consider any answer the agency makes.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1976–2019 · leading case: Jean Dehainaut v. Federico Pena, 32 F.3d 1066 (7th Cir. 1994).
Jean Dehainaut v. Federico Pena, 32 F.3d 1066 (7th Cir. 1994). “*1069 5 C.F.R. § 731.303 . Among the many reasons for disqualification listed in 5 C.”
Clarry v. United States, 891 F. Supp. 105 (E.D.N.Y 1995). “Shortly after the strike, the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) determined that pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 731.303 the PAT-CO strikers were barred from any federal employment for three years.”
Maurice M. Larry v. Ray E. Lawler, Leland L. Walton, Jayne B. Spain, Lt. Andolsek, Robert E. Hampton, 605 F.2d 954 (7th Cir. 1978). “5 C.F.R. § 731.303 . Debarment. “When a person is disqualified for any reason named in § 731.”
Clarry v. United States, 85 F.3d 1041 (2d Cir. 1996). “5 C.F.R. § 731.303 . 1 Among the many reasons for disqualification enumerated in 5 C.”
Rixson Merle Perry v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 759 F.2d 1271 (7th Cir. 1985). “Perry, however, did subsequently apply to the Commission to be placed on the list of eligible applicants for employment consideration by the various agencies and departments within the federal government, and was successful.”
Christopher K. Korte v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 797 F.2d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “202, OPM, in its discretion, may deny that person examination for and appointment to a competitive position for a period of not more than 3 years from the date of determination of disqualification.”
Nat'l Treasury Employees Union v. U.S. Dep't of the Treasury, 25 F.3d 237 (5th Cir. 1994). “5 C.F.R. § 731.303 . It is further undisputed that the government has not given employees criminal use immunity for potentially incriminating responses to Question 19.”
Serv. Employees Int'l Union Local 200United v. Trump (W.D.N.Y. 2019). “In rejecting the plaintiffs’ claims in Clarry, the Second Circuit reached the following conclusions, among others: (1) OPM had not violated its own regulations because, even if 5 C.F.R. § 731.303 , upon which the plaintiffs relied, was interpreted as inconsistent with OPM’s…”
Larry v. Lawler, 413 F. Supp. 185 (N.D. Ill. 1976). “The decision of the defendants has not caused the plaintiff to lose existing government employment.”
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.