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. § 7514

Regulations

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar

The Office of Personnel Management may prescribe regulations to carry out the purpose of this subchapter, except as it concerns any matter with respect to which the Merit Systems Protection Board may prescribe regulations.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1983–2018 · leading case: Mitchell v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 741 F.3d 81 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mitchell v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 741 F.3d 81 (Fed. Cir. 2014). · cites it 4× “See 5 U.S.C. § 7514 ; Wilder v. Merit Sys. Prot.”
Williams v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 892 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “5 U.S.C. § 7514 ; accord Wilder , 675 F.3d at 1322 .”
Carrow v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 564 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “Carrow’s appeal turns on whether the administrative judge properly construed the term “an Executive agency.” The Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) is entrusted with administering the statutory provisions governing the rights of federal employees to appeal adverse agency…”
Wilder v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 675 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “” 1 That regulatory language plainly requires that both the present employment and the prior employment be “Federal civilian employment” in order for the period of employment to qualify as a period of “current continuous service.”
Banks v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 854 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “The Office of Personnel Management has exercised its authority under 5 U.S.C. § 7514 to promulgate regulations implementing § 7511.”
James Oliver v. United States Postal Serv., 696 F.2d 1129 (5th Cir. 1983). “5 U.S.C. § 7514 . The statute provides for thirty-day notice to employees against whom certain adverse action is initiated except those who are reasonably believed to have committed a crime for which a sentence of imprisonment may be imposed.”
Archuleta v. Hopper, 786 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “” 5 U.S.C. § 7514 . The CSRA specifically provides that removals are adverse actions appealable to the Board, and we decline OPM’s invitation to rewrite the statute to add suitability removals to the list of those matters not subject to appeal in § 7512.”
Archuleta v. Hopper, 773 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “” 5 U.S.C. § 7514 . The CSRA specifically provides that removals are adverse actions appealable to the Board, and we decline OPM’s invitation to rewrite the statute to add suitability removals to the list of those matters not subject to appeal in § 7512.”
Harris L. Winns v. United States Postal Serv., 2017 MSPB 1 (MSPB 2017). “5 U.S.C. § 7514 ; Wilder, 675 F.3d at 1322 .”
Harris L. Winns v. United States Postal Serv., 2017 MSPB 1 (MSPB 2017). “5 U.S.C. § 7514 ; Wilder, 675 F.3d at 1322 .”
Nicholas Jay Wilson v. Dep't of the Navy, 2015 MSPB 48 (MSPB 2015). “IAF, Tab 5 at 22; see 5 U.S.C. § 7514 . Thus, Egan is clearly applicable here.”
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.