C.F.R. » Title 5 » CHAPTER I—OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT › SUBCHAPTER B—CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS › PART 752—ADVERSE ACTIONS › Subpart B—Regulatory Requirements for Suspension for 14 Days or Less

5 C.F.R. § 752.202

Standard for action

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

(a) An agency may take action under this subpart for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service as set forth in 5 U.S.C. 7503(a).

(b) An agency may not take a suspension against an employee on the basis of any reason prohibited by 5 U.S.C. 2302.

[74 FR 63532, Dec. 4, 2009, as amended at 85 FR 65985, Oct. 16, 2020; 87 FR 67782, Nov. 10, 2022]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 67 cases, 1965–2015 · leading case: Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 (1974).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 (1974). · cites it 5× “5 CFR §752.202 (a). Section 752.202 (a) provides: “(a)'Notice of proposed adverse action.”
Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367 (1983). · cites it 2× “The employee then had the right to examine all disclosable materials that formed the basis of the proposed action, 5 CFR § 752.202 (a) (1975), *387 the right to answer the charges with a statement and supporting affidavits, and the right to make an oral nonevidentiary…”
Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61 (1974). · cites it 2× “[50] Title 5 CFR § 752.202 (d) reads in part: "Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, an employee against whom adverse action is proposed is entitled to be retained in an active duty status during the notice period.”
Laymon Wesley Alsbury v. The United States Postal Serv., 530 F.2d 852 (9th Cir. 1976). · cites it 3× “221b; compare 5 CFR § 752.202 (b) cited in Arnett at p.”
Skelly v. State Pers. Bd., 539 P.2d 774 (Cal. 1975). · cites it 2× “§ 7501 (b); 5 C.F.R. § 752.202 (a), (b), (f).) The employee is not entitled to an evidentiary trial-type hearing until the appeal stage of the proceedings.”
Andrew Connor v. United States Civil Serv. Comm'n, 721 F.2d 1054 (6th Cir. 1983). · cites it 2× “Connor complains of three procedural irregularities: (1) He was not permitted to address the appropriate officials at his “oral reply” hearing as provided for in 5 C.F.R. § 752.202 (b) (1976); (2) The Army was allowed to offer additional documentary evidence not previously…”
Roskos v. United States, 213 Ct. Cl. 34 (Ct. Cl. 1977). · cites it 2× “S5-4a (1966), 5 C.F.R. §752.202 (d) (1971). Plaintiff was denied these safeguards to his rank.”
Brown, 217 Ct. Cl. 710 (Ct. Cl. 1978). · cites it 5× “§ 7501 (1970) and 5 C.F.R. § 752.202 (f) (1973) entitle an employee to written notice of the adverse decision and the grounds on which it is sustained.”
Alan R. Smiertka v. United States Dep't of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Serv., 604 F.2d 698 (D.C. Cir. 1979). · cites it 2× “” 5 C.F.R. § 752.202 (1978) implements the statutory mandate, providing in part: *700 “(a) Notice of proposed adverse action.”
Irving Polcover v. Sec'y of the Treasury, 477 F.2d 1223 (D.C. Cir. 1973). · cites it 2× “) This language could be interpreted as requiring no recommendation authority in the officer charged with actually hearing the reply.”
Grover v. United States, 200 Ct. Cl. 337 (Ct. Cl. 1973). · cites it 2× “While thus *348 fatally defective, we will, nevertheless, examine the plaintiff’s charges of procedural error individually, since both parties spent considerable time ably briefing and later arguing these points, which are very important in cases of this kind.”
Hadigian v. Bd. of Governors, Fed. Reserve Sys., 463 F. Supp. 437 (D.D.C. 1978). · cites it 7× “As a consequence, he claims entitlement to the expanded procedural rights accorded preference eligible employees in adverse actions under 5 U.”
Show all 67 citing cases →
— 5 C.F.R. § 752.202(a) — 2 cases
Hoover v. United States, 206 Ct. Cl. 640 (Ct. Cl. 1975).
Tupper v. Fairview Hosp. & Training Ctr., 540 P.2d 401 (Or. Ct. App. 1975).
— 5 C.F.R. § 752.202(a)(1) — 2 cases
Speros v. United States, 8 Cl. Ct. 422 (Ct. Cl. 1985).
Rubio v. Hampton, 384 F. Supp. 218 (C.D. Cal. 1974).
— 5 C.F.R. § 752.202(b) — 6 cases
Boyle v. United States, 207 Ct. Cl. 27 (Ct. Cl. 1975).
Raymond F. Pauley v. United States of Am., 419 F.2d 1061 (7th Cir. 1970).
King v. Hampton, 327 F. Supp. 714 (E.D. Mo. 1971).
Hearne v. United States, 7 Cl. Ct. 362 (Ct. Cl. 1985).
Tupper v. Fairview Hosp. & Training Ctr., 540 P.2d 401 (Or. Ct. App. 1975).
— 5 C.F.R. § 752.202(c) — 1 case
Hearne v. United States, 7 Cl. Ct. 362 (Ct. Cl. 1985).
— 5 C.F.R. § 752.202(d) — 2 cases
Roskos v. United States, 213 Ct. Cl. 34 (Ct. Cl. 1977). “S5-4a (1966), 5 C.F.R. §752.202 (d) (1971). Plaintiff was denied these safeguards to his rank.”
Marsden v. United States Postal Serv., 390 F. Supp. 329 (D. Minnesota 1974).
— 5 C.F.R. § 752.202(f) — 1 case
Tupper v. Fairview Hosp. & Training Ctr., 540 P.2d 401 (Or. Ct. App. 1975).
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.