Hello, and welcome to a brief presentation on our report, Prohibited Personnel Practices:  

Employee Perceptions.  The purpose of this presentation is to provide a little information

about the Prohibited Personnel Practices (PPPs), how they work, and why they are

important.  We encourage you to read the report in its entirety for a more in‐depth picture

of this important issue.  In particular, our report provides an extremely valuable level of

description of each PPP as well as data on the trends in PPPs over time.  

1
When the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 was enacted, Congress included a list of

prohibitions.  There were 11 at the time, but a 12th PPP was added by the Veterans’

Employment Opportunity Act of 1998 (VEOA), creating a total of 12 PPPs.

One important thing to remember about the PPPs is that they are, for the most part, about

improper motives.  

As the Board has repeatedly expressed in its decisions, for most PPPs, it is not the

action itself that violates the law, but, instead, the intent behind the action.

Even for the few situations where motive is not specifically in the PPP, the motive of the

official may be an aggravating or mitigating factor in any penalty.

2
As explained in section 2302 of title 5, for a PPP to occur, an individual must have the

“authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve” a personnel

action.  As explained in the case of Special Counsel v. Lee, if an individual knowingly

engages in a “pattern of cooperation” in order to aid and abet someone else who is

trying to commit a PPP, then this accomplice is also liable for his or her assistance.   

3
The definition of a personnel action with respect to the PPPs is very broad.  A

personnel action means an appointment, promotion, disciplinary action, detail,

transfer, reassignment, reinstatement, restoration, reemployment, or performance

evaluation. It also can include any other decision concerning pay, benefits, awards,

training, psychiatric testing, or any significant change in duties, responsibilities, or

working conditions.

Under the right circumstances, a failure to take a personnel action or an attempt to

avoid taking a personnel action that would have otherwise been taken can

constitute the commission of a PPP.

4
So, what are the prohibited personnel practices?  The PPPs specify that agency

officials are not permitted to discriminate, consider improper recommendations,

coerce political activity, obstruct competition, or encourage a candidate to

withdraw from competition in order to provide an advantage to someone else.  

Officials cannot deliberately shape the competition for a position for the purpose of

giving an advantage to someone, or to deliberately disadvantage a potential

candidate.  

Remember that motive is often important.  Defining the scope of competition to

bring in a pool of well qualified candidates is not only permitted, it is encouraged.  It

is when there is an improper purpose behind the decision that this sixth PPP may

occur.

5
It is also a PPP to deliberately engage in nepotism, which is the hiring of a relative.  

It is a PPP to retaliate against an employee for blowing the whistle, exercising an

appeal right, helping someone else to exercise an appeal right, or to punish a

person for refusing to follow an order that would require the person to break the

law.  

It is a PPP to discriminate based on conduct that does not affect an individual’s

performance or that of others in the workplace.  For this reason, most off‐duty

activities cannot be the basis for a personnel action.  However, if the off duty

conduct affects the efficiency of the service, such as a law enforcement officer

breaking the law, then an agency is permitted to act on the conduct.

It is also a PPP to knowingly violate a veteran’s preference requirement.

6
The last PPP is rather broad, because most personnel laws, rules, or regulations implement a merit

principle.  

The 12th PPP is one PPP where the Board has expressly held that motive is not in the text of the

PPP.  According to the Board in Special Counsel v. Byrd, “The statute simply does not contain that

requirement, and the plain words of the statute show that only three elements must be proved by

the preponderance of the evidence in order to find a violation” of (b)(12).

“These elements are: (1) a personnel action was taken; (2) the taking of this action violated a civil

service law, rule or regulation; and (3) the law, rule or regulation [that was] violated implements or

directly concerns a merit system principle.”

However, motive does still come into play with respect to the penalty for this PPP.  In Byrd, the

Board held that it is a mitigating factor if an employee is unaware of the illegality of his or her

actions, but it also held that a subject matter expert in personnel is responsible for knowing the

personnel rules.  

Thus, this 12th PPP appears to stand for the concept that it is a very bad idea to be careless about

the laws, rules, and regulations that were designed to ensure a merit‐based civil service.

7
There are three kinds of PPP cases.  For all PPPs, there are the cases where an employee

can come to MSPB with an otherwise appealable action and assert that the action was the

result of a PPP and therefore should be undone.  There are also disciplinary action cases,

which means that the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) asks MSPB to discipline an official for

committing a PPP.   OSC is an independent agency charged with investigating and

prosecuting PPPs.  

For whistleblowing—the 8th PPP – there is also an individual right of action, which means

that by following a certain process, an individual can seek corrective action for a personnel

action that is not otherwise appealable to MPSB.  

Agency officials need to understand that for disciplinary actions brought in response to a

PPP, OSC brings the charge, while MSPB decides if the case was proven by preponderant

evidence and if OSC’s recommended penalty is appropriate.  On appeal, the Federal Circuit

can review MSPB’s decision.  But, the employing agency is not a party in a disciplinary

action case and has no authority in the matter.  In other words, no matter how high‐ranking

a manager may be, he or she can’t shield an offender.

8
The PPPs were enacted because the conduct that they address is contrary to a

merit‐based civil service.  These rules exist to prevent the creation of a corrupt

spoils system and to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse.

In addition to the fact that committing a PPP violates the law, compromises the

merit system, and can cost you your job, the commission of a PPP damages a work

unit’s ability to function efficiently and effectively.

For example, as can be seen on this chart, observing PPPs damages employee

engagement.  Even if an individual is not personally harmed by the PPP, watching it

happen can make the employee far less engaged.

There is a good reason why these personnel practices are prohibited!

9
Thank you for watching our brief overview.  

If you would like to learn more about the PPPs, please read our report Prohibited Personnel

Practices:  Employee Perceptions.  Our website also contains two additional reports that

focus on the PPP of retaliation for whistleblowing activities.

If your agency would like an in‐person presentation on whistleblowing or the other

prohibited personnel practices, with the opportunity to ask questions, please contact us.  

Presentations may be possible at no cost to your agency via teleconference or in person

within the D.C. area.

10