U.S. Code » Title 5 » Part PART II— CIVIL SERVICE FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES › Chapter CHAPTER 12— MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL, AND EMPLOYEE RIGHT OF ACTION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL

5 U.S.C. § 1215

Disciplinary action

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)(1) Except as provided in subsection (b), if the Special Counsel determines that disciplinary action should be taken against any employee for having—(A) committed a prohibited personnel practice,(B) violated the provisions of any law, rule, or regulation, or engaged in any other conduct within the jurisdiction of the Special Counsel as described in section 1216, or(C) knowingly and willfully refused or failed to comply with an order of the Merit Systems Protection Board,the Special Counsel shall prepare a written complaint against the employee containing the Special Counsel’s determination, together with a statement of supporting facts, and present the complaint and statement to the employee and the Board, in accordance with this subsection.(2) Any employee against whom a complaint has been presented to the Merit Systems Protection Board under paragraph (1) is entitled to—(A) a reasonable time to answer orally and in writing, and to furnish affidavits and other documentary evidence in support of the answer;(B) be represented by an attorney or other representative;(C) a hearing before the Board or an administrative law judge appointed under section 3105 and designated by the Board;(D) have a transcript kept of any hearing under subparagraph (C); and(E) a written decision and reasons therefor at the earliest practicable date, including a copy of any final order imposing disciplinary action.(3)(A) A final order of the Board may impose—(i) disciplinary action consisting of removal, reduction in grade, debarment from Federal employment for a period not to exceed 5 years, suspension, or reprimand;(ii) an assessment of a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000; or(iii) any combination of disciplinary actions described under clause (i) and an assessment described under clause (ii).(B) In any case brought under paragraph (1) in which the Board finds that an employee has committed a prohibited personnel practice under section 2302(b)(8), or 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D), the Board may impose disciplinary action if the Board finds that the activity protected under section 2302(b)(8), or 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D) was a significant motivating factor, even if other factors also motivated the decision, for the employee’s decision to take, fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take a personnel action, unless that employee demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the employee would have taken, failed to take, or threatened to take or fail to take the same personnel action, in the absence of such protected activity.(4) There may be no administrative appeal from an order of the Board. An employee subject to a final order imposing disciplinary action under this subsection may obtain judicial review of the order by filing a petition therefor with such court, and within such time, as provided for under section 7703(b).(5) In the case of any State or local officer or employee under chapter 15, the Board shall consider the case in accordance with the provisions of such chapter.(b) In the case of an employee in a confidential, policy-making, policy-determining, or policy-advocating position appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate (other than an individual in the Foreign Service of the United States), the complaint and statement referred to in subsection (a)(1), together with any response of the employee, shall be presented to the President for appropriate action in lieu of being presented under subsection (a).(c)(1) In the case of members of the uniformed services and individuals employed by any person under contract with an agency to provide goods or services, the Special Counsel may transmit recommendations for disciplinary or other appropriate action (including the evidence on which such recommendations are based) to the head of the agency concerned.(2) In any case in which the Special Counsel transmits recommendations to an agency head under paragraph (1), the agency head shall, within 60 days after receiving such recommendations, transmit a report to the Special Counsel on each recommendation and the action taken, or proposed to be taken, with respect to each such recommendation.(Added Pub. L. 101–12, § 3(a)(13), Apr. 10, 1989, 103 Stat. 27; amended Pub. L. 112–199, title I, § 106, Nov. 27, 2012, 126 Stat. 1468.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2012—Subsec. (a)(3). Pub. L. 112–199 amended par. (3) generally. Prior to amendment, par. (3) read as follows: “A final order of the Board may impose disciplinary action consisting of removal, reduction in grade, debarment from Federal employment for a period not to exceed 5 years, suspension, reprimand, or an assessment of a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000.”

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2012 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 112–199 effective 30 days after Nov. 27, 2012, see section 202 of Pub. L. 112–199, set out as a note under section 1204 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Larry L. Hathaway v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 981 F.2d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Larry L. Hathaway v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 981 F.2d 1237 (Fed. Cir. 1992). · cites it 5× “We have jurisdiction pursuant to 5 U.S.C.A. § 1215 (a)(4) (West Pocket Part 1992) and 5 U.”
SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024). “, 5 U. S. C. § 1215 (a)(3)(A)(ii) (Merit Systems Protection Board); 7 U.”
Tom Briggs v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., & United States, Intervenor, 331 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “The government responds, first, that the Board’s authority to decide Hatch Act complaints is circumscribed by 5 U.S.C. § 1215 , which does not grant the Board authority to rule on the Act’s constitutionality.”
Frank Eidmann v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 976 F.2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1992). · cites it 5× “Eidmann with notice, see 5 U.S.C. § 1215 (a)(1) (Supp. II 1990), no disciplinary action was pending.”
Katherine Coffman v. Special Couns., 2022 MSPB 18 (MSPB 2022). · cites it 6× “Importantly, there is nothing inconsistent between OSC’s authority to initiate disciplinary action against Federal employees whom it believes committed a PPP, 5 U.S.C. § 1215 (a)(1)(A), and Congress’s clear intent to allow employees in unsuccessful disciplinary actions to recoup…”
Rodney Cowan v. Off. of Special Couns., 2022 MSPB 2 (MSPB 2022). · cites it 4× “5 U.S.C. §§ 1215 (a)(3)(A), 7326. ¶10 The Board favors the use of settlements to avoid the unnecessary expenditure of resources and litigation.”
Michael J. Costello v. Off. of Special Couns., & Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., Intervenor, 182 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1999). · cites it 3× “Following an investigation, the Office of Special Counsel filed complaints with the Board against Costello and Strehle, seeking disciplinary actions (under 5 U.S.C. § 1215 ) against them for alleged violations of the Whistleblower Protection Act, 5 § 2302(b)(8), and other…”
Am. Fed'n Gov. Emp. v. Off. of Special Couns., 1 F.4th 180 (4th Cir. 2021). “Because OSC is the sole body tasked with investigating complaints and pursuing disciplinary action before the Merit Systems Protection Board, 5 U.S.C. § 1215 , federal employees who act in conformity with OSC’s advice effectively enjoy safe harbor from OSC prosecution.”
Amoco Prodn Co v. Watson, Rebecca W., 410 F.3d 722 (D.C. Cir. 2005). “, 5 U.S.C. § 1215 (a)(1); 15 U.S.C. §§ 45 (b),- 522; 25 U.”
SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024). “, 5 U. S. C. §1215 (a)(3)(A)(ii) (Merit Systems Protection Board); 7 U.”
Kay Coles James, Dir., Off. of Pers. Mgmt. v. Frank Santella & Joseph Jech, & Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 328 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “We agree with the Board that, “while OSC’s interests in bringing a disciplinary proceeding under 5 U.S.C. § 1215 differ somewhat from the interests of an employing agency, the nature of charges an employing agency brings against its own employee may be quite similar to the…”
Carson v. United States Off. of Special Couns., 563 F. Supp. 2d 286 (D.D.C. 2008). “See 5 U.S.C. §§ 1215 (a)(4) and 1221(h)(2), incorporating 5 U.”
Show all 33 citing cases →
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.