5 U.S.C. § 1505
Hearings; adjudications; notice of determinations
Historical and Revision Notes | ||
|---|---|---|
Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| 5 U.S.C. 118k(b) (3d sentence, less 4th, through 17th words, and 4th sentence). | July 19, 1940, ch. 640, § 4 “Sec. 12(b) (3d sentence, less 4th through 17th words, and 4th sentence)”, 54 Stat. 768. June 11, 1960, Pub. L. 86–507, § 1(1), 74 Stat. 200. |
Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.
1978—Pub. L. 95–454 substituted “Merit Systems Protection Board” for “Civil Service Commission”.
Amendment by Pub. L. 95–454 effective 90 days after
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases, 1970–2018 · leading case: Molina-Crespo v. United States Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 547 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 2008).
Molina-Crespo v. United States Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 547 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 2008). “See 5 U.S.C. § 1505 . Molina's candidacy for Lorain County Commissioner ended when he failed to win the primary held on March 2, 2004.”
In re the Arbitration between Blackburne & Governor's Off. of Emp. Relations, 664 N.E.2d 1222 (N.Y. 1996). “A violator is subject to discharge from employment (see, 5 USC § 1505 [2]; § 1506). If removal is warranted, the governmental employer must impose that sanction or subject itself to the loss of Federal funds equivalent to two years of the violator’s salary (see, 5 USC § 1505…”
Robert D. Alexander v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 165 F.3d 474 (6th Cir. 1999). “The Merit System Protection Board has plenary jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 1505 to determine after a hearing whether a state or local employee has violated the Hatch Act, and “whether the violation warrants the removal of the officer or employee from his office or…”
State of Minnesota v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 875 F.2d 179 (8th Cir. 1989). “On June 23, 1987, the district court issued a decision reversing the Board’s ruling in part and remanding the case to the Board for the issuance of an opinion and order consistent with the court’s finding that neither the DJT nor Kehoe willfully or knowingly violated the Hatch…”
Lisa B. Williams v. U.S. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 15 F.3d 46 (4th Cir. 1994). “…of whether an employee violated the Hatch *49 Act and whether the violation warrants removal from office. See 5 U.S.C. § 1505 (1988).”
State of Minnesota v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 858 F.2d 433 (8th Cir. 1988). “DISCUSSION Under 5 U.S.C. § 1505 (1982) of the Hatch Act, the Board has plenary jurisdiction to determine whether the Hatch Act has been violated and, after a hearing, the Board is authorized to determine whether the violation warrants removal from employment.”
Lisa B. Williams v. U.S. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 55 F.3d 917 (4th Cir. 1995). “On appeal from the administrative decision, the district court reversed and remanded, finding that Williams was not a “covered employee” because she did not exercise “dis *920 cretionary or supervisory authority” over the use of federal funds.”
Bottoms Farm P'ship v. Sonny Perdue, 895 F.3d 1070 (8th Cir. 2018). “Given the Act's broad grant of authority to the Corporation, and the specific authority over the provisions of insurance and insurance contracts found in 5 U.S.C. §§ 1505 and 1506, we conclude that we must give substantial deference to the FCIC's interpretation of the special…”
Stanley J. Brown v. United States Civil Serv. Comm'n, 553 F.2d 531 (7th Cir. 1977). “As the CSC observed in its decision of the present cases, “ ‘Once it is found that a violation has occurred, the Commission is required by the provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 1505 to determine whether the violation warrants removal.”
Connecticut, Dept. of Human Resources v. United States Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 718 F. Supp. 125 (D. Conn. 1989). “On May 12, 1987, the Board adopted this decision as its determination pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 1505 . On September 29, 1987, after being informed by the DHR that Camillieri would not be removed, the Board ordered, pursuant to 5 U.”
Minnesota, Dep't of Jobs & Training v. United States Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 666 F. Supp. 1305 (D. Minn. 1987). “The MSPB further found that Kehoe’s violation of the Hatch Act was of such scope and effect as to warrant removal of Kehoe from his position with DJT, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 1505 . The MSPB then ordered that Kehoe be removed from his position within thirty days of the MSPB’s…”
Perkins v. Off. of Special Couns., 522 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “5 U.S.C §§ 1505, 1506. Additionally, paragraph (a)(4) of section 1215 states that “[a]n employee subject to a final order imposing disciplinary action under this subsection may obtain judicial review” in this court.”
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.