(a) Non-delegation. If the head of an agency is responsible for determining whether a supervisor has committed a prohibited personnel action for purposes of § 752.102(b), the head of the agency may not delegate that responsibility.
(b) Scope. An action carried out under this subpart—
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, shall be subject to the same requirements and procedures, including those with respect to an appeal, as an action under 5 U.S.C. 7503, 7513, or 7543; and
(2) Shall not be subject to—
(i) Paragraphs (1) and (2) of 5 U.S.C. 7503(b);
(ii) Paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b) and subsection (c) of 5 U.S.C. 7513; and
(iii) Paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b) and subsection (c) of 5 U.S.C. 7543.
(c) Notice. A supervisor against whom an action is proposed to be taken under this subpart is entitled to written notice that—
(1) States the specific reasons for the proposed action;
(2) Informs the supervisor about the right of the supervisor to review the material that is relied on to support the reasons given in the notice for the proposed action; and
(d) Answer and evidence. (1) A supervisor who receives notice under paragraph (c) of this section may, not later than 14 days after the date on which the supervisor receives the notice, submit an answer and furnish evidence in support of that answer.
(2) If, after the end of the 14-day period described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, a supervisor does not furnish any evidence as described in that clause, or if the head of the agency in which the supervisor is employed determines that the evidence furnished by the supervisor is insufficient, the head of the agency shall carry out the action proposed under § 752.102 (b), as applicable.
[85 FR 65983, Oct. 16, 2020, as amended at 87 FR 67782, Nov. 10, 2022]
Notes of Decisions
Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61 (1974).
· cites it 2× “" [48] 5 CFR § 752.103 (a) (5). [49] 5 CFR § 315.”
Fiorentino v. United States, 221 Ct. Cl. 545 (Ct. Cl. 1979).
“5 C.F.R. 752.103(a)(6) states that excepted employees do not enjoy any of the protections against adverse action which competitive service employees enjoy.”
Ann M. McCormick v. Dep't of the Air Force, 329 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
· cites it 3× “102 (1949) (excluding probationary employees from the procedures required for separating permanent and indefinite employees); 5 C.F.R. § 752.103 (a) (1969) (excluding probationary employees from the definition of “employees”); 5 C.”
Crowley v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 415 (Ct. Cl. 1975).
· cites it 2× “” See 5 C.F.R. § 752.103 (b) (5). The CSC’s BAR, in interpreting the adverse action regulations in these and similar cases, has consistently avoided retroactive application of the amendments thereto, but has held controlling those regulations existing at the time respective…”
Joseph E. Paige v. Patricia Roberts Harris, Etc., 584 F.2d 178 (7th Cir. 1978).
“, as are those in the competitive service. As a non-veteran in the excepted service, appellant has no statutory or regulatory right to a statement of reasons for discharge or adverse action appeal rights.”
Liguori v. Alexander, 495 F. Supp. 641 (S.D.N.Y. 1980).
“5 C.F.R. § 752.103 (b)(3). 3 . Chapter 3-2-i of the Federal Personnel Manual provides that the FEAA “office responsible for adjudicating an appeal in which there is no right to a hearing may grant the parties an opportunity for a personal appearance.”
Rasmussen v. United States, 211 Ct. Cl. 260 (Ct. Cl. 1976).
“5 In appraising plaintiff’s contentions, we put aside the claim that it was error for the BAR to receive the additional material from the agency because that material contained *267 evidence as to which plaintiff had the right of cross-examination.”
Wilmot v. United States, 205 Ct. Cl. 666 (Ct. Cl. 1974).
“The RIF is specifically excluded from the adverse action regulations in 5 C.F.R. § 752.103 (b) (3) (1968) and in 5 C.”
Bright, 210 Ct. Cl. 729 (Ct. Cl. 1976).
“§7501 ; 5 C.F.R. §752.103 ; 5 U.S.C. §§ 2102 (a) (2), 2103; and 5 C.”
Dr. Rulon Garfield v. The United States, 770 F.2d 1061 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
“301(a) (1977), and an employee in a LEA would nevertheless be exempted from coverage pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 752.103 (a)(9) (1977), as these regulations were in effect at the time.”
— 5 C.F.R. § 752.103(a)(6) — 1 case
Fiorentino v. United States, 221 Ct. Cl. 545 (Ct. Cl. 1979).
“5 C.F.R. 752.103(a)(6) states that excepted employees do not enjoy any of the protections against adverse action which competitive service employees enjoy.”
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.