C.F.R. » Title 5 » CHAPTER I—OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT › SUBCHAPTER B—CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS › PART 752—ADVERSE ACTIONS › Subpart D—Regulatory Requirements for Removal, Suspension for More Than 14 Days, Reduction in Grade or Pay, or Furlough for 30 Days or Less

5 C.F.R. § 752.403

Standard for action

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

(a) An agency may take an adverse action, including a performance-based adverse action or an indefinite suspension, under this subpart only for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service.

(b) An agency may not take an adverse action 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 65986, Oct. 16, 2020; 87 FR 67783, Nov. 10, 2022]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1982–2023 · leading case: Thomas O. Barnes v. Harold I. Small, Gen., 840 F.2d 972 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Thomas O. Barnes v. Harold I. Small, Gen., 840 F.2d 972 (D.C. Cir. 1988). “§ 7513 (a) (1982); 5 C.F.R. § 752.403 (a) (1987). 8 The efficiency-of-the-service standard “require[sj an agency that proposes to remove an employee for *980 misconduct to demonstrate a sufficient nexus between the misconduct and the job performance of the employee or others to…”
Neil K. Sherman v. Clifford Alexander, 684 F.2d 464 (7th Cir. 1982). “Ill 1979), and 5 C.F.R. § 752.403 (a) (1982). In considering the first charge, the examiner noted that where off-duty conduct is used as the basis for removal, there must be a “nexus” between the misconduct and the ability of the agency to perform its mission, to satisfy the…”
D.E. v. Dep't of the Navy, MSPB, 721 F.2d 1165 (9th Cir. 1983). “5 C.F.R. § 752.403 (1982). They also instruct the Office of Personnel Management to consider certain factors in determining whether removal will promote the efficiency of the service.”
Allsbrook v. United States, 1 Cl. Ct. 194 (Ct. Cl. 1982). “See 5 C.F.R. § 752.403 (b) (1982). . The board’s reference was to 5 U.”
Johnathan Gajdos v. Dep't of the Army, 2014 MSPB 55 (MSPB 2014). “190 , 192 (1987); see 5 C.F.R. § 752.403 . Both RIFs and adverse action furloughs, however, are taken for the same types of nondisciplinary reasons.”
Johnathan Gajdos v. Dep't of the Army, 2014 MSPB 55 (MSPB 2014). “190 , 192 (1987); see 5 C.F.R. § 752.403 . Both RIFs and adverse action furloughs, however, are taken for the same types of nondisciplinary reasons.”
Peggy Maloney v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt. (MSPB 2023). · cites it 3× “§ 1204 (f), the implementation of 5 C.F.R. § 752.403 by her former employer, the Office of Administration (OA), an entity within the Executive Office of the President.”
Perry v. Ross (D.D.C. 2022). “§ 7513 (a); 5 C.F.R. § 752.403 (a)). Perry’s argument is fatally undermined by the record.”
Kevin Lebeau v. Dep't of the Navy (MSPB 2022). “407 , ¶ 8 (2010); see 5 C.F.R. § 752.403 (a) (stating that an agency may take an adverse action only for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service).”
Rodriguez v. Dhs (Fed. Cir. 2023). “§ 7513 (a) and 5 C.F.R. § 752.403 (a). See Informal Opening Br.”
Corinne S. Yee v. Dep't of the Navy, 2014 MSPB 81 (MSPB 2014). · cites it 2× “” 5 C.F.R. § 752.403 (a). Thus, the question is whether the phrase “efficiency of the service” should be interpreted consistent with the appellant’s allegation that the agency was required to prove that the furlough promoted the efficiency of the service of the Navy.”
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.