7 C.F.R. § 7.28
Removal from office or employment for cause
(a) Adverse personnel actions involving any county committee member or alternate member, county executive director, or other county office employee will be taken for failing to perform the duties of their office, impeding the effectiveness of any program administered in the county, violating official instructions, or for misconduct.
(b) Any person whom FSA proposes to suspend or remove from office or employment must be given advance written notice of the reason for such action and must be advised of the right to reply to such a proposal and any right of further review and appeal if the person is removed or suspended.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1974–2023 · leading case: Miller v. U.S. Dep't of Agric. Farm Servs. Agency, 143 F.3d 1413 (11th Cir. 1998).
Miller v. U.S. Dep't of Agric. Farm Servs. Agency, 143 F.3d 1413 (11th Cir. 1998). “See 7 C.F.R. §§ 7.28 , 7.29. As a result, such workers are not "federal employees" for purposes of the Civil Service Reform Act ("CSRA") (codified in various sections of 5 U.”
Miller v. Iowa State ASCS Comm., 374 F. Supp. 415 (S.D. Iowa 1974). “Plaintiff Miller was suspended from his position pursuant to 7 CFR 7.28, and charged with political activities in the County Office by using county office personnel, equipment and supplies during working hours, consuming alcohol on government leased property while in duty status…”
Jon Hedman v. Dep't of Agric., 915 F.2d 1552 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “II Upon removal, Hedman exhausted the administrative remedies found at 7 C.F.R. §§ 7.28 , 7.30 (1989) and in the 22-PM.”
Moore v. Glickman, 113 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 1997). “7 C.F.R. § 7.28 (a) & (b). A suspended person must be given a written statement of the reasons for the suspension and may challenge the suspension in writing, in person, or both.”
Miller v. U.S. Dep't of Agric. Farm Servs. Agency, 966 F. Supp. 1087 (N.D. Ala. 1997). “The State Committee, pursuant to 7 C.F.R. § 7.28 , voted to remove plaintiff from his employment.”
Krueger v. Lyng, 4 F.3d 653 (8th Cir. 1993). “9 Rather than having acted as a review *657 board, the aforementioned members of the State Committee acted simply as a discharging authority pursuant to 7 C.F.R. § 7.28 (a) (1987), and are consequently not entitled to absolute immunity.”
Eileen Buchholz v. George Aldaya, 210 F.3d 862 (8th Cir. 2000). “See 7 C.F.R. § 7.28 (a). ASCS refers to these as “misconduct” offenses.”
Eileen Buchholz v. George Aldaya Michael W. O'COnnOr & Mariellen Ross, Individually & in Their Off. Capacities With the Farm Serv. Agency of the United States Dep't of Agric., 210 F.3d 862 (8th Cir. 2000). “Consistent with 7 C.F.R. 7.28 and 7.29, these separations are limited to specified grounds, they must be preceded by careful investigation and formal suspension, and they may be initiated by State committees and the Deputy Administrator, as well as by county executive directors.”
Turner v. Howell (W.D. Va. 2023). “” 7 C.F.R. § 7.28 . The parties seem to infer that, because the FSA must notify a person removed from office of “any right of further review and appeal”—i.”
— 7 C.F.R. § 7.28(a) — 1 case
Eileen Buchholz v. George Aldaya Michael W. O'COnnOr & Mariellen Ross, Individually & in Their Off. Capacities With the Farm Serv. Agency of the United States Dep't of Agric., 210 F.3d 862 (8th Cir. 2000). “Consistent with 7 C.F.R. 7.28 and 7.29, these separations are limited to specified grounds, they must be preceded by careful investigation and formal suspension, and they may be initiated by State committees and the Deputy Administrator, as well as by county executive directors.”
— 7 C.F.R. § 7.28(c) — 1 case
Miller v. Iowa State ASCS Comm., 374 F. Supp. 415 (S.D. Iowa 1974). “Plaintiff Miller was suspended from his position pursuant to 7 CFR 7.28, and charged with political activities in the County Office by using county office personnel, equipment and supplies during working hours, consuming alcohol on government leased property while in duty status…”
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.