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
Notes of Decisions
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.”
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, 568 U.S. 41 (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.”
5 U.S.C. § 7512(2): 2 cases
5 U.S.C. § 7512(C): 1 case
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.