5 C.F.R. § 734.102

Jurisdiction

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

(a) The United States Office of Special Counsel has exclusive authority to investigate allegations of political activity prohibited by the Hatch Act Reform Amendments of 1993, as implemented by 5 CFR part 734, prosecute alleged violations before the United States Merit Systems Protection Board, and render advisory opinions concerning the applicability of 5 CFR part 734 to the political activity of Federal employees. (5 U.S.C. 1212 and 1216). Advice concerning the Hatch Act Reform Amendments may be requested from the Office of Special Counsel:

(1) By letter addressed to the Office of Special Counsel at 1730 M Street NW., Suite 218, Washington, DC 20036-4505;

(2) By telephone on (202) 254-3650, or (1-800) 854-2824;

(3) By fax on (202) 254-3700; or

(4) By email at [email protected].

(b) The Merit Systems Protection Board has exclusive authority to determine whether a violation of the Hatch Act Reform Amendments of 1993, as implemented by 5 CFR part 734, has occurred and to impose a penalty of removal, reduction-in-grade, debarment from Federal employment for a period not to exceed 5 years, suspension, reprimand, or an assessment of a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000, for violation of the political activity restrictions regulated by this part. (5 U.S.C. 1204 and 7326).

(c) The Office of Personnel Management is authorized to issue regulations describing the political activities which are permitted and prohibited under the Hatch Act Reform Amendments of 1993. (5 U.S.C. 1103, 1104, 7325; Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1978, 92 Stat. 3783, 3 CFR 1978 Comp. p. 323; and E.O. 12107, 3 CFR 1978 Comp. p. 264.)

[59 FR 48769, Sept. 23, 1994, as amended at 61 FR 35100, July 5, 1996; 79 FR 25485, May 5, 2014]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2003–2024 · leading case: Burrus v. Vegliante, 336 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Burrus v. Vegliante, 336 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2003). “306, and an advisory opinion is available (but was not sought by APWU) from the OSC, see 5 C.F.R. § 734.102 (a). APWU also argues that the APWU bulletin boards are limited public fora under the First Amendment.”

United States v. Story Cnty. ex rel. Bd. of Supervisors, 28 F. Supp. 3d 861 (S.D. Iowa 2014). “” (citing 5 C.F.R. § 734.102 (b))).- Furthermore, nothing in the Hatch Act’s statutory scheme suggests that the duties undertaken by employees found in violation of the Act during their time of federal service are ipso facto rendered void or are somehow deprived of their federal…”

Proj. on Gov't Oversight, Inc. v. U.S. Off. of Special Couns. (D.D.C. 2024). · cites it 3× “” 5 C.F.R. § 734.102 (a). It must investigate allegations of prohibited activity and, “where appropriate,” bring enforcement actions before the Merit Systems Protections Board.”

Choudhury Salekin v. Off. of Special Couns. (MSPB 2024). “§§ 1212 (a)(5), 1215(a)(1)(B), and 1216(c), and 5 C.F.R. § 734.102 , the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) filed a complaint against the respondent, who served as a physician with the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), alleging 15 counts of violating the Hatch Act concerning…”

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.