U.S. Code » Title 5 » Part PART III— EMPLOYEES › Subpart Subpart F— Labor-Management and Employee Relations › Chapter CHAPTER 75— ADVERSE ACTIONS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— REMOVAL, SUSPENSION FOR MORE THAN 14 DAYS, REDUCTION IN GRADE OR PAY, OR FURLOUGH FOR 30 DAYS OR LESS

5 U.S.C. § 7512

Actions covered

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar
This subchapter applies to—(1) a removal;(2) a suspension for more than 14 days;(3) a reduction in grade;(4) a reduction in pay; and(5) a furlough of 30 days or less;but does not apply to—(A) a suspension or removal under section 7532 of this title,(B) a reduction-in-force action under section 3502 of this title,(C) the reduction in grade of a supervisor or manager who has not completed the probationary period under section 3321(a)(2) of this title if such reduction is to the grade held immediately before becoming such a supervisor or manager,(D) a reduction in grade or removal under section 4303 of this title,(E) an action initiated under section 1215 or 7521 of this title, or(F) a suitability action taken by the Office under regulations prescribed by the Office, subject to the rules prescribed by the President under this title for the administration of the competitive service.(Added Pub. L. 95–454, title II, § 204(a), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1136; amended Pub. L. 101–12, § 9(a)(2), Apr. 10, 1989, 103 Stat. 35; Pub. L. 114–92, div. A, title X, § 1086(f)(9), Nov. 25, 2015, 129 Stat. 1010.)Editorial NotesPrior Provisions

A prior section 7512, Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 528, related to adverse action against a preference eligible employee and procedures applicable to such adverse action, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 95–454, § 204(a).

Amendments

2015—Par. (F). Pub. L. 114–92 added par. (F).

1989—Par. (E). Pub. L. 101–12 substituted “1215” for “1206”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1989 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 101–12 effective 90 days following Apr. 10, 1989, see section 11 of Pub. L. 101–12, set out as a note under section 1201 of this title.

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.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 919 cases (269 in the last 5 years), 1968–2026 · leading case: Garcia v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 437 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Garcia v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 437 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2006). · cites it 19× “5 U.S.C. § 7512 (2000). Such official action is by statute clearly within the jurisdiction of the Board, and an aggrieved employee can appeal such an action to the Board for a determination as to whether the action was proper.”
Steven Crowe v. Christine Wormuth, 74 F.4th 1011 (9th Cir. 2023). · cites it 8× “Thus, “[i]f (but only if) the action is particularly serious— involving, for example, a removal from employment or a reduction in grade or pay—the affected employee has a right to appeal the agency’s decision to the MSPB.” Kloeckner, 568 U.”
Rosario-Fabregas v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 833 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2016). · cites it 4× “5 U.S.C. §§ 7512 , 7513(d). Additionally, this court has recognized that “seemingly voluntary actions in some circumstances may be considered adverse actions” over which the Board has jurisdiction.”
Schaefer v. United States, 224 Ct. Cl. 541 (Ct. Cl. 1980). · cites it 12× “He also decided this warranted plaintiffs removal under 5 U.S.C. § 7512 (1976) 3 to promote the efficiency of Labor.”
Cordell D. Jennings v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 59 F.3d 159 (Fed. Cir. 1995). · cites it 9× “See 5 U.S.C. § 7512 (2) (1994) (board has jurisdiction over suspensions of more than fourteen days).”
Conforto v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 713 F.3d 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2013). · cites it 4× “See 5 U.S.C. §§ 7512 (1); 7513(a), (d); 7701(a); Garcia, 437 F.”
Kaplan v. Conyers, 733 F.3d 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2013). · cites it 4× “” 5 U.S.C. § 7512 (3). An employee subject to an adverse action is entitled to the protections of § 7513, which include written notice of the specific reasons for the proposed action, an opportunity to respond to the charges, and the requirement that the agency’s action is taken…”
Parkinson v. Dep't of Just., 815 F.3d 757 (Fed. Cir. 2016). · cites it 5× “Parkinson’s removal from his FBI position, see 5 U.S.C. §§ 7512 , 7701, must adjudicate in particular Mr.”
Kloeckner v. Solis, 133 S. Ct. 596 (2012). · cites it 2× “See 5 U. S. C. §§ 7512 , 7701. In that challenge, the employee may claim, among other things, that the agency *44 discriminated against her in violation of a federal statute.”
Mouton-Miller v. MSPB, 985 F.3d 864 (Fed. Cir. 2021). · cites it 4× “Mouton-Miller’s appeal, determining that it lacked jurisdiction to review the agency’s action because the challenged agency action was excluded from the Board’s jurisdiction by 5 U.S.C. § 7512 (C). See Mouton- Miller v.”
Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982). · cites it 2× “' " Brief for Respondent 39, citing 5 U. S. C. § 7512 (a). Because Congress has granted this legislative protection, respondent argues, no federal official could, within the outer perimeter of his duties of office, cause Fitzgerald to be dismissed without satisfying this…”
Robert Zachariasiewicz, Jr. v. DOJ, 48 F.4th 237 (4th Cir. 2022). · cites it 5× “Specifically, the district court concluded that a mixed case can include only those “serious” personnel actions enumerated 13 USCA4 Appeal: 19-2343 Doc: 62 Filed: 08/31/2022 Pg: 14 of 41 in 5 U.S.C. § 7512 that fall within the MSPB’s “original jurisdiction.”
Show all 919 citing cases →
— 5 U.S.C. § 7512(2) — 2 cases
Swink v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 372 F. App'x 90 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Lonnie Turner v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2026).
— 5 U.S.C. § 7512(C) — 1 case
James Kelly v. Dep't of Def. (MSPB 2024).
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.