{
  "id": "R44803",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R44803",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 587145,
      "date": "2017-03-29",
      "retrieved": "2020-01-02T14:41:27.732237",
      "title": "The Civil Service Reform Act: Due Process and Misconduct-Related Adverse Actions",
      "summary": "Federal employees receive statutory protections that differ from those of the private sector, including more robust limits on when they can be removed or demoted. Although a number of laws apply to various aspects of the federal civil service system, the primary governing framework is the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), as amended. The CSRA created a comprehensive system for reviewing actions taken by most federal agencies against their employees, and the act provides a variety of legal protections and remedies for federal employees. It also funnels review of agency decisions to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), subject to review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit). \nIn addition to these statutory protections, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires the federal government to observe certain procedures when depriving individuals of life, liberty, or property. The CSRA\u2019s requirement that covered employees may not be removed from federal service, except for cause or unacceptable performance, creates a constitutional property interest in continued employment. The government cannot deprive covered employees of this property interest without adhering to due process requirements.\nChapter 75 of Title 5 of the U.S. Code provides various procedural protections for certain government employees subjected to major adverse actions. Those adverse actions include removal, suspensions for more than 14 days, reductions in grade or pay, and furloughs of 30 days or less. Agencies may only take a major adverse action against an employee \u201cfor such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service.\u201d In order to sustain an agency\u2019s decision on appeal to the MSPB, an agency must show (1) by a preponderance of the evidence that the charged conduct occurred; (2) a nexus between that conduct and the efficiency of the service; and (3) that the penalty imposed by the agency is reasonable.\nThe MSPB has noted three circumstances in which an agency may establish a nexus between off-duty misconduct (e.g., criminal activity) and the efficiency of the service. First, in certain egregious circumstances, the type of misconduct committed by the employee creates a rebuttable presumption of a nexus. Second, an agency may show by a preponderance of the evidence that the misconduct \u201cadversely affects the appellant\u2019s or co-workers\u2019 job performance or the agency\u2019s trust and confidence in the appellant\u2019s job performance.\u201d Finally, the agency may demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee\u2019s misconduct interfered with or adversely affected the agency\u2019s mission.\nThe CRSA does not expressly reference \u201cindefinite suspensions,\u201d but agencies have routinely indefinitely suspended employees for certain behavior. The Federal Circuit and the MSPB have ruled that indefinite suspensions for disciplinary reasons that last more than 14 days qualify as major adverse actions under Chapter 75. The MSPB has recognized that an agency may indefinitely suspend an employee to further the efficiency of the service in three situations: (1) when there is reasonable cause to believe the employee has committed a crime carrying a sentence of imprisonment; (2) for certain medical reasons; and (3) when the employee\u2019s position requires access to classified information, but that access has been suspended. A prominent recurring issue is when an agency may indefinitely suspend an employee for alleged criminal behavior occurring outside the workplace. Whether and when indefinite suspensions may be imposed on account of alleged criminal behavior may turn upon the facts relied upon by the agency when in assessing whether there is reasonable cause to believe the employee committed a crime carrying a sentence of imprisonment.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44803",
          "sha1": "036d0b243f8eb59d451c58266bbca5cae87211b1",
          "filename": "files/20170329_R44803_036d0b243f8eb59d451c58266bbca5cae87211b1.html",
          "images": {}
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44803",
          "sha1": "849b8af42b8fbb0aebe61137f8cf1114413b2156",
          "filename": "files/20170329_R44803_849b8af42b8fbb0aebe61137f8cf1114413b2156.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}