U.S. Code » Title 5 » Part PART II— CIVIL SERVICE FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES › Chapter CHAPTER 15— POLITICAL ACTIVITY OF CERTAIN STATE AND LOCAL EMPLOYEES

5 U.S.C. § 1506

Orders; withholding loans or grants; limitations

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) When the Merit Systems Protection Board finds—(1) that a State or local officer or employee has not been removed from his office or employment within 30 days after notice of a determination by the Board that he has violated section 1502 of this title and that the violation warrants removal; or(2) that the State or local officer or employee has been removed and has been appointed within 18 months after his removal to an office or employment in the same State (or in the case of the District of Columbia, in the District of Columbia) in a State or local agency which does not receive loans or grants from a Federal agency;the Board shall make and certify to the appropriate Federal agency an order requiring that agency to withhold from its loans or grants to the State or local agency to which notice was given an amount equal to 2 years’ pay at the rate the officer or employee was receiving at the time of the violation. When the State or local agency to which appointment within 18 months after removal has been made is one that receives loans or grants from a Federal agency, the Board order shall direct that the withholding be made from that State or local agency.(b) Notice of the order shall be sent by registered or certified mail to the State or local agency from which the amount is ordered to be withheld. After the order becomes final, the Federal agency to which the order is certified shall withhold the amount in accordance with the terms of the order. Except as provided by section 1508 of this title, a determination or order of the Board becomes final at the end of 30 days after mailing the notice of the determination or order.(c) The Board may not require an amount to be withheld from a loan or grant pledged by a State or local agency as security for its bonds or notes if the withholding of that amount would jeopardize the payment of the principal or interest on the bonds or notes.(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 405; Pub. L. 95–454, title IX, § 906(a)(6), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1225; Pub. L. 112–230, § 3(d), Dec. 28, 2012, 126 Stat. 1616.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Derivation

U.S. Code

Revised Statutes and

Statutes at Large

 

5 U.S.C. 118k(b) (less 1st 4 sentences).

July 19, 1940, ch. 640, § 4 “Sec. 12(b) (less 1st 4 sentences)”, 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.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2012—Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 112–230 inserted “(or in the case of the District of Columbia, in the District of Columbia)” after “the same State”.

1978—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 95–454 substituted “Merit Systems Protection Board” for “Civil Service Commission” and “Board” for “Commission”, respectively, wherever appearing.

Subsecs. (b), (c). Pub. L. 95–454 substituted “Board” for “Commission”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2012 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 112–230 effective 30 days after Dec. 28, 2012, see section 5(a) of Pub. L. 112–230, set out as a note under section 1501 of this title.

Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–454 effective 90 days after Oct. 13, 1978, see section 907 of Pub. L. 95–454, set out as a note under section 1101 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases, 1969–2013 · leading case: Robert D. Alexander v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 165 F.3d 474 (6th Cir. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Robert D. Alexander v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 165 F.3d 474 (6th Cir. 1999). · cites it 3× “The penalty provision in 5 U.S.C. § 1506 (a) clearly gives the employer the choice of removing the employee in question “from his office or employment,” or forfeiting federal funds equal to two years’ pay at the rate or amount the employee was receiving at the time of the…”
Molina-Crespo v. United States Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 547 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “That is, the Hatch Act does not authorize the MSPB to remove state employees who violate the Act, it authorizes the MSPB to withhold federal funds if the underlying state employer does not remove employees who violate the Act.”
Rain & Hail Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Fed. Crop Ins., 229 F. Supp. 2d 710 (S.D. Tex. 2002). · cites it 3× “5 U.S.C. §§ 1506 , 1508(j). Section 1506(d) allows suits against the FCIC in district court “without regard to the amount in controversy” and does not place a limitation on the type of relief available.”
In re the Arbitration between Blackburne & Governor's Off. of Emp. Relations, 664 N.E.2d 1222 (NY 1996). · cites it 2× “The Board ordered respondent OASAS to "remove [Blackburne] from his position within 30 days * * * [or] be subject to the sanction of a withholding of federal funds, as provided at 5 U.S.C. § 1506 .” OSC was directed to apprise the Board of Blackburne’s employment status within…”
Fela v. US, Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 730 F. Supp. 779 (N.D. Ohio 1989). · cites it 4× “In conclusion, the Board notified the City that it would be subject to the withholding provision of 5 U.S.C. § 1506 if Mr. Fela was not removed within thirty (30) days.”
State of Oklahoma v. Richard S. Schweiker, 655 F.2d 401 (D.C. Cir. 1981). “§ 611 (b) (1946) (current version at 5 U.S.C. § 1506 (a) (1976)). Similarly, in Lau , the Court approved a spending condition based on section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.”
Lisa B. Williams v. U.S. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., & Off. of Special Couns. Governor's Off. for Individuals With Disabilities, 15 F.3d 46 (4th Cir. 1994). “The MSPB directed the appropriate federal office to withhold from its grants to the OID an amount equal to two years of Williams’s salary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 1506 (a)(2) (1988), if the OID failed to remove Williams within thirty days of the order.”
State of Minnesota, Dep't of Jobs & Training v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 875 F.2d 179 (8th Cir. 1989). “5 U.S.C. § 1506 (a) contains a provision for penalizing the state in "an amount equal to 2 years’ pay at the rate the officer or employee was receiving at the time of the violation.”
Wisconsin State Employees Ass'n, Council 24 v. Wisconsin Nat. Resources Bd., 298 F. Supp. 339 (W.D. Wis. 1969). “nt part: “(4) ‘State or local officer or employee’ means an individual employed by a State or local agency whose principal employment is in connection with an activity which is financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States or a Federal agency, but…”
Stanley J. Brown v. United States Civil Serv. Comm'n, 553 F.2d 531 (7th Cir. 1977). “, 5 U.S.C. § 1506 (1970 ed. and Supp. V, 1975), that no express provision in the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974 granted an exception to individuals in a situation such as that of the petitioners-appellants’, the court determined that it must regard the former §…”
Lisa B. Williams v. U.S. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., & Off. of Special Couns. Governor's Off. for Individuals With Disabilities, 55 F.3d 917 (4th Cir. 1995). “…or it may instead forfeit receipt of federal funds in an amount equal to the employee’s pay over a two-year period. 5 U.S.C. § 1506 (a) (1988).”
Fishkin v. United States Civil Serv. Comm'n, 309 F. Supp. 40 (N.D. Cal. 1969). “Title 5 U.S.C. § 1506 provides in pertinent part: “(a) When the Civil Service Commission finds— (1) that a State or local officer or employee has not been removed from his office or employment within 30 days after notice of a determination by the Commission that he has violated…”
Show all 26 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.