5 C.F.R. § 752.101

Coverage

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

(a) Adverse actions covered. This subpart applies to actions taken under 5 U.S.C. 7515.

(b) Definitions. In this subpart—

Agency—

(1) Has the meaning given the term in 5 U.S.C. 2302(a)(2)(C), without regard to whether any other provision of this chapter is applicable to the entity; and

(2) Does not include any entity that is an element of the intelligence community, as defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3003).

Day means a calendar day.

Grade means a level of classification under a position classification system.

Insufficient evidence means evidence that fails to meet the substantial evidence standard described in 5 CFR 1201.4(p).

Pay means the rate of basic pay fixed by law or administrative action for the position held by the employee, that is, the rate of pay before any deductions and exclusive of additional pay of any kind.

Prohibited personnel action means taking or failing to take an action in violation of paragraph (8), (9), or (14) of 5 U.S.C. 2302(b) against an employee of an agency.

Supervisor means an employee who would be a supervisor, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 7103(a)(10), if the entity employing the employee was an agency.

Suspension means the placing of an employee, for disciplinary reasons, in a temporary status without duties and pay.

[85 FR 65983, Oct. 16, 2020, as amended 87 FR 67782, Nov. 10, 2022]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1967–1982 · leading case: Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61 (1974).
Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61 (1974). · cites it 2× “807 with 5 CFR § 752.101 et seq. [4] 5 CFR § 315.804 .”
Raymond F. Pauley v. United States of Am., 419 F.2d 1061 (7th Cir. 1970). · cites it 4× “, was a reduction in rank requiring institution of adverse action proceedings pursuant to Civil Service Regulations, 5 C.F.R. 752.101 et seq., 4 and the failure to comply with those regulations invalidated the severance; (4) the reassignment was, in fact, a removal designed to…”
Edward I. Leefer v. Adm'r, Nat'l Aeronautics & Space Admin., 543 F.2d 209 (D.C. Cir. 1976). · cites it 2× “See 5 C.F.R. §§ 752.101 et seq. (1974), which since have been amended.”
Miller v. United States, 438 F. Supp. 514 (E.D. Pa. 1977). · cites it 2× “§ 7512 (same); Civil Service Regulations, 5 C.F.R. §§ 752.101 to 752.402 (1977) (regulating adverse actions by agencies); and Executive Order 10987, 27 Fed.”
Betty J. Vukonich v. Civil Serv. Comm'n & the United States of Am., Defendants, 589 F.2d 494 (10th Cir. 1978). “5 C.F.R. § 752.101 (1978). EPA took no action and HEW’s action constituted at most withdrawal of an offer to employ, which does not come within any of the enumerated categories.”
Liguori v. Alexander, 495 F. Supp. 641 (S.D.N.Y. 1980). ““Adverse actions” by an agency include removals, suspensions, furloughs without pay, and reduction in rank or pay, 5 C.F.R. § 752.101 , but not reduction-in-force actions taken under 5 C.”
Frank Camero v. The United States, 375 F.2d 777 (Ct. Cl. 1967). “NICHOLS, Judge (dissenting): We have in 5 C.F.R. §§ 752.101 et seq.; 754.101 et seq.”
Wilson v. Califano, 473 F. Supp. 1350 (D. Colo. 1979). “§ 7512 (b); 5 C.F.R. § 752.101 et seq. *1352 Pursuant to statute, a federal employee against whom adverse action is proposed is entitled to (1) at least 30 days advance written notice of the proposed action, which notice details the reasons therefor; (2) a reasonable time to…”
Beeson v. Hudson, 630 F.2d 622 (8th Cir. 1980). “and 5 C.F.R. 752.101, et seq. for provisions governing termination of permanent employees.”
Beeson v. Hudson, 630 F.2d 622 (8th Cir. 1980). “and 5 C.F.R. 752.101, et seq. for provisions governing termination of permanent employees 8 See, e.”
Moss v. United States, 229 Ct. Cl. 837 (Ct. Cl. 1982). “403 and 5 C.F.R. §§ 752.101 etseq. (1978), chapters 630, 751 and 771 of the Federal Personnel Manual and nsco inst 12630.”
Donald W. Davis, Sr. v. William P. Berzak, Etc., 405 F.2d 642 (10th Cir. 1969). “§§ 7501 , 7512, and 5 C.F.R. 752.101 et seq. 4 . O’Brien v. United States, 284 F.”
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.