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. § 7513

Cause and procedure

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Under regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, an agency may take an action covered by this subchapter against an employee only for such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service.(b) An employee against whom an action is proposed is entitled to—(1) at least 30 days’ advance written notice, unless there is reasonable cause to believe the employee has committed a crime for which a sentence of imprisonment may be imposed, stating the specific reasons for the proposed action;(2) a reasonable time, but not less than 7 days, to answer orally and in writing and to furnish affidavits and other documentary evidence in support of the answer;(3) be represented by an attorney or other representative; and(4) a written decision and the specific reasons therefor at the earliest practicable date.(c) An agency may provide, by regulation, for a hearing which may be in lieu of or in addition to the opportunity to answer provided under subsection (b)(2) of this section.(d) An employee against whom an action is taken under this section is entitled to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board under section 7701 of this title.(e) Copies of the notice of proposed action, the answer of the employee when written, a summary thereof when made orally, the notice of decision and reasons therefor, and any order effecting an action covered by this subchapter, together with any supporting material, shall be maintained by the agency and shall be furnished to the Board upon its request and to the employee affected upon the employee’s request.(Added Pub. L. 95–454, title II, § 204(a), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1136.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective 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 943 cases (220 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367 (1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367 (1983). · cites it 6× “The 1978 amendments retained the general rule, 5 U. S. C. § 7513 (a) (1982 ed.), and supplemented it by specifying certain "prohibited personnel practices.”
Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019). · cites it 6× “” 5 U.S.C. § 7513 (a). 4 This limitation requires “a has such authority or whether such authority would run afoul of the Constitution because even if we accept, for pur- poses of this appeal, that he does possess that authority, it would not change the outcome.”
Robinson v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 498 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007). · cites it 14× “Robinson "minimum due process protection" in the denial of his security clearance and had properly followed the procedures of 5 U.S.C. § 7513 when it removed him from his position.”
United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 594 U.S. 1 (2021). · cites it 4× “” 5 U. S. C. §7513 (a); see Seila Law LLC v.”
PHH Corp. v. Consum. Fin. Prot. Bureau, 881 F.3d 75 (D.C. Cir. 2018). · cites it 4× “The Lloyd-LaFollette Act of 1912, 5 U.S.C. § 7513 – like its predecessor, the Pendleton Act of 1883 – sought to establish a civil service based on merit and unshackled from patronage.”
Cheney v. Dep't of Just., 479 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2007). · cites it 8× “at 4, the AJ explained nevertheless that “if an adverse action results from a decision to deny a security clearance, an employee is entitled to the procedural protections set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 7513 ,” id. at 8. The AJ cited Lebray v.”
Rayburn F. HESSE, Petitioner, v. Dep't OF STATE, Respondent, 217 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000). · cites it 9× “§ 1221 (a), (b), or as an affirmative defense in an appeal directly to the Board from an adverse agency action, see 5 U.S.C. § 7513 . The Board based its conclusion on the Supreme Court’s decision in Department of the Navy v.”
Parkinson v. Dep't of Just., 815 F.3d 757 (Fed. Cir. 2016). · cites it 8× “The Board assumed jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. §§ 7513 (d), 7511(b)(8) and 7701, and we have jurisdiction on appeal from the Board’s final decision under 5 U.”
Kaplan v. Conyers, 733 F.3d 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2013). · cites it 6× “Rather, the Court held that the Board has authority to review only: (1) whether an Executive Branch employer determined the employee’s position required a security clearance; (2) whether the clearance was denied or revoked; (3) whether the employee was provided with the…”
Makky v. Chertoff, 541 F.3d 205 (3rd Cir. 2008). · cites it 3× “In fact, the language of the relevant provisions differ, as the directive governing the TSA, MD No. 1100.75.3, pt. 6, sec. H.3.a.(l)(i) (“The employee should be provided a copy of the material relied upon to support each charge and specification with the letter.”
Parkinson v. Dep't of Just., 874 F.3d 710 (Fed. Cir. 2017). · cites it 7× “See 5 U.S.C. §§ 7513 (d), 7511(a)(1)(B)(i). It is also undisputed that he may not bring whistleblower claims to the Board through an IRA under § 1221 or as an affirmative defense under 5 U.”
James B. King, Dir., Off. of Pers. Mgmt. v. Raymond Alston, & Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 75 F.3d 657 (Fed. Cir. 1996). · cites it 10× “The board held that Alston was denied meaningful due process under the Constitution, as well as the procedural protections to which he was entitled pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7513 (b). The board based its decision on the agency’s failure to provide adequate notice of the reasons for…”
Show all 943 citing cases →
— 5 U.S.C. § 7513(d) — 3 cases
Borrell v. Naval Facilities Eng'g Command (D.D.C. 2020).
Perdue v. MSPB (Fed. Cir. 2026).
Robert L. Ganoe, Sr. v. Sec'y of Def. Pete Hegseth (M.D. Penn. 2026).
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.