U.S. Code » Title 5 » Part PART III— EMPLOYEES › Subpart Subpart F— Labor-Management and Employee Relations › Chapter CHAPTER 75— ADVERSE ACTIONS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— SUSPENSION FOR 14 DAYS OR LESS

5 U.S.C. § 7501

Definitions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar
For the purpose of this subchapter—(1) “employee” means an individual in the competitive service who is not serving a probationary or trial period under an initial appointment or who has completed 1 year of current continuous employment in the same or similar positions under other than a temporary appointment limited to 1 year or less; and(2) “suspension” means the placing of an employee, for disciplinary reasons, in a temporary status without duties and pay.(Added Pub. L. 95–454, title II, § 204(a), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1134; amended Pub. L. 114–92, div. A, title XI, § 1105(c)(3), Nov. 25, 2015, 129 Stat. 1024; Pub. L. 117–81, div. A, title XI, § 1106(b)(2)(C), Dec. 27, 2021, 135 Stat. 1950.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 7501, Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 527, related to removal or suspension without pay of an individual in the competitive service and procedures applicable to such removal or suspension, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 95–454, § 204(a).

Amendments

2021—Par. (1). Pub. L. 117–81 struck out “, except as provided in section 1599e of title 10,” after “initial appointment or,”.

2015—Par. (1). Pub. L. 114–92 substituted “or, except as provided in section 1599e of title 10, who” for “or who”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2021 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 117–81 applied as if effective Dec. 31, 2022, to correspond to the effective date of the repeal of section 1599e of Title 10, Armed Forces, to reflect the probable intent of Congress. See Effective Date of Repeal note under section 1599e of Title 10.

Effective Date

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

Short Title of 1990 Amendment

Pub. L. 101–376, § 1, Aug. 17, 1990, 104 Stat. 461, provided that: “This Act [amending sections 4303, 7511, and 7701 of this title and enacting provisions set out as notes under section 4303 of this title] may be cited as the ‘Civil Service Due Process Amendments’.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 305 cases (21 in the last 5 years), 1968–2026 · leading case: Arnett v. Kennedy
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Arnett v. Kennedy (1974) scotus · cites it 10× “In March 1972, he was removed from the federal service pursuant to the provisions of the Lloyd-La Follette Act, 5 U. S. C. § 7501 , after Wendell Verduin, the Regional Director of the OEO, upheld written administrative charges made in the form of a “Notification, of Proposed…”
Bush v. Lucas (1983) scotus · cites it 6× “; 5 U. S. C. § 7501 (b)(4). The next step was a right to appeal to the Civil Service Commission's Federal Employee Appeals Authority.”
Vanover v. Hantman (1999) dcd · cites it 7× “1999), Chapter 752 of the AC Personnel Manual, and the procedural mandates of 5 U.S.C. §§ 7501 et seq. (1994), alleged to be incorporated by reference into the AC’s personnel procedures.”
Charles H. Young v. Robert E. Hampton (1977) ca7 · cites it 7× “The agency may base this determination also on evidence adduced at the employee’s hearing which tends to connect the employee’s misconduct with the efficiency of the service; or, in certain egregious circumstances, where the adverse effect of retention on the efficiency of the…”
United States v. National Treasury Employees Union (1995) scotus · cites it 2× “[12] Two decades ago, a three-Justice plurality invoked Pickering in the course of upholding against vagueness and overbreadth challenges a provision of the Lloyd-La Follette Act, 5 U. S. C. § 7501 (a) (1970 ed.), that allowed the discharge of certain federal employees "only for…”
Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) cal · cites it 3× “§ 7501 (a).) The same statute granting this substantive right to continued employment absent cause sets forth the procedural rights of an employee prior to discharge or suspension.”
Milton R. Stone v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (1999) cafc · cites it 2× “Stone to continue in his position unless the agency could show he needed to be removed for cause or unacceptable performance.”
United States v. Testan (1976) scotus “But federal agencies continue to have discretion in determining most matters relating to the terms and conditions of federal employment.”
Sampson v. Murray (1974) scotus · cites it 2× “) [42] See 5 U. S. C. § 7501 . [43] 22 Stat. 404 . [44] See 5 U.”
Bishop v. Tice (1980) ca8 · cites it 7× “2d 15 (1974) (citing 5 U.S.C. §§ 7501 , 7701; 5 C.F.R. Parts 752, 771, 772).”
Shaposka v. United States (1977) cc · cites it 9× “Plaintiffs argument is premised on three principal grounds: first, plaintiffs procedural rights under 5 U.S.C. § 7501 (1970) 1 were violated since he was in competitive status at the time of his termination, and he was afforded only those termination procedures due a person…”
American Federation of Government Employees v. Hoffmann (1976) alnd · cites it 5× “Plaintiffs cite only two sources even arguably creating their property interest, 5 U.S.C. § 7501 (a), and 5 U.S.C. § 3502 .”
Show all 305 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.