U.S. Code » Title 5 » Part PART III— EMPLOYEES › Subpart Subpart F— Labor-Management and Employee Relations › Chapter CHAPTER 75— ADVERSE ACTIONS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER V— SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE

5 U.S.C. § 7543

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 misconduct, neglect of duty, malfeasance, or failure to accept a directed reassignment or to accompany a position in a transfer of function.(b) An employee against whom an action covered by this subchapter is proposed is entitled to—(1) at least 30 days’ advance written notice, unless there is reasonable cause to believe that the employee has committed a crime for which a sentence of imprisonment can be imposed, stating 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 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, and 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 Merit Systems Protection Board upon its request and to the employee affected upon the employee’s request.(Added Pub. L. 95–454, title IV, § 411(2), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1174; amended Pub. L. 97–35, title XVII, § 1704(d)(2), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 758; Pub. L. 98–615, title III, § 304(c), Nov. 8, 1984, 98 Stat. 3219.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1984—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 98–615 inserted reference to failure to accept a directed reassignment or to accompany a position in a transfer of function.

1981—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 97–35 substituted “misconduct, neglect of duty, or malfeasance” for “such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–615 effective Nov. 8, 1984, see section 307 of Pub. L. 98–615, set out as a note under section 3393 of this title.

Effective Date of 1981 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–35 effective June 1, 1981, with certain exceptions and conditions, see section 1704(e) of Pub. L. 97–35, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3595 of this title.

Effective Date

Section effective 9 months after Oct. 13, 1978, and congressional review of provisions of sections 401 through 412 of Pub. L. 95–454, see section 415 of Pub. L. 95–454, set out as a note under section 3131 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 594 U.S. 1 (2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 594 U.S. 1 (2021). “29324 (2018); see also 5 U. S. C. §7543 (a); 5 CFR pt. 359 (2020); Brief for United States 5, n.”
Helman v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 856 F.3d 920 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “Under Title 5, the DVA is limited to taking an adverse action against a senior executive only "for misconduct, neglect of duty, malfea-sanee, or failure to accept a directed reassignment or to accompany a position in a transfer of function.”
Esparraguera v. Army, 981 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2020). · cites it 2× “” 5 U.S.C. § 7543 (a). This pathway to removal includes pro- cedural protections like those available for covered employ- ees in the competitive and excepted services.”
James B. King, Dir., Off. of Pers. Mgmt. v. Phillip G. Hillen & Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 21 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “Hillen appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 7543 (d). There ensued several Board proceedings, summarized as follows: Hillen I A The first of three proceedings before the administrative judge (then called the “presiding official”) took…”
Maria Esparraguera v. Dep't of the Army, 101 F.4th 28 (D.C. Cir. 2024). “Two features of the governing legal 3 The government agrees that another CSRA provision governing career SES appointees, 5 U.S.C. § 7543 (a), creates a property interest.”
De Maio v. United States, 93 Fed. Cl. 205 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “5 U.S.C. § 7543 ; see also 5 U.S.C. § 7701 (a)(1) (“An employee, or applicant for employment, may submit an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Boai’d from any action which is appealable to the Board under any law, rule, or regulation.”
Bertrand G. Berube v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 820 F.2d 396 (Fed. Cir. 1987). · cites it 2× “Did the Board commit legal error by concluding that an agency may remove an employee in the SES under 5 U.S.C. § 7543 (1982) for conduct that is related to his job performance? 2.”
Cohen v. United States Dep't of the Air Force, 707 F. Supp. 12 (D.D.C. 1989). “See 5 U.S.C. § 7543 . The Court finds that such a personnel action is a “proceeding” within the coverage of Title III.”
Senior Executives Ass'n v. United States, 576 F. Supp. 1207 (D.D.C. 1983). “(5) SES employees may be reassigned without cause to other SES positions within their agency regardless of geographic location and regardless of any change in authority, responsibility, and status.”
Palmeri v. MSPB (Fed. Cir. 2026). · cites it 3× “5 U.S.C. § 7543 (d). However, the CSRA specifically excluded certain agen- cies, including the FBI and DEA, from the SES.”
Esparraguera v. Dep't of the Army (D.D.C. 2022). · cites it 2× “Instead, Plaintiff argues that 5 U.S.C. § 7543 (a) contains a “for cause” removal requirement that creates a property interest.”
McCabe v. Barr (D.D.C. 2020). “” The second statute, 5 U.S.C. § 7543 (a), provides that, “[u]nder regulations prescribed by the 30 Office of Personnel Management, an agency may take an action covered by this subchapter against an employee only for misconduct, neglect of duty, malfeasance, or failure to accept…”
Show all 23 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.