U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
      Here's how you know **The .gov means it’s official.**
            
            Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
 **The site is secure.**
            
            The **https://** ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.


U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
 Menu


close HomeAbout
    About the MSPB	
			Contacts & Locations
			Equal Employment Opportunity
			Information Quality Standards
			No FEAR Act
			Open.Gov
			Organization
			Plans, Budget & Performance
			Privacy Program
           Merit System Principles
	Prohibited Personnel Practices
	 Site Index and SearchAppeals
    Appeal Process
						Appellant Q&A
    Electronic Filing
    Forms
    Hearing Sites
    Policy & Resources
    Regulations
    Whistleblower Q&A 
	Electronic Filing  
	Mediation Appeals ProgramDecisions
    Case Reports
Nonprecedential Decisions
		Precedential DecisionsStudies & Publications
       About & Contact Studies
		Latest Publications
		Newsletters
		Reports
          Research Briefs
		Search StudiesSurveys of Federal Employees Public & Information Services
    Accessibility
		   Contracting & Procurement
			  Federal Register Notices
		      FOIA Program
				 e-FOIA Reading Room
        Submit a FOIA Request
           FOIA Reports 
			Information Collections
			Jobs & Internships
	Press Releases & News
	Privacy Program
				Regulations
			    Technical Support Search small
Search




Home
	  Prohibited Personnel Practices
      Frequently Asked Questions
      1- Non-Discrimination
         2 - Proper Considerations
         3 - Coercing  Political Activity
               4 -  Obstructing the Right to Compete for Employment
               5 - Influencing  Withdrawal from Competition
               6 - Granting  Any Preference or Advantage Not Authorized by Law
               7 - Nepotism
                   8 - Whistleblower Protection
                   9 - Protection Against Retaliation
                   10 - Conduct Not Adversely Affecting Performance
                   11 - Violating Veterans' Preference
                   12 - Violating Merit System Principles
                   13 - Nondisclosure Forms, Policies & Agreements
					14 - Accessing Medical RecordsSearch & Site Index Prohibited Personnel Practice 3: Coercing Political Activity

  Prohibited Personnel Practice of the Month

	Any employee who has authority to take, direct others to take,  recommend, or approve any personnel action, shall not, with respect to such  authority— 
  
coerce the political activity of any person (including the providing  of any political contribution or service), or take any action against any  employee or applicant for employment as a reprisal for the refusal of any  person to engage in such political activity.***Where can I find this prohibition covered in the law?***
          This prohibited personnel practice (PPP) is listed  at section2302(b)(3)  in title 5 of the United States Code.***Where  did this provision come from?***
            While this provision was codified in 1978 within the Civil Service Reform  Act of 1978, Pub.  L. No. 95‐454, 92 Stat. 1111, it has an interesting history dating back nearly  100 years earlier.  From the earliest  days of our Nation until 1883, it was common practice for the incoming President’s  administration to reward members of his political party with Federal Government  appointments within every level of the Executive Branch.  It was likewise expected of such Federal  employees to make generous political donations back to their political patron.  Such practices led to public perceptions of widespread  corruption and incompetence within the Federal Government. Michael Bogdanow and  Hon. Thomas Lanphear, History of the Merit Systems Protection Board, Journal  of the Federal Circuit Historical Society, Vol. 4, 109 (2010).
    In 1883, Congress began to reign in such practices by passing the Civil  Service Act, also known as “The Pendleton  Act of 1883.”  This statute required  for the first time that a sizeable portion  of Federal appointments be made solely based upon the relative merits of the  applicants, without regard to their political loyalties.  Over time, this principle was expanded and  strengthened to protect all competitive and excepted service positions.  Today, it is a PPP under this statute for a Federal  official to coerce any applicant or employee to engage in political activity,  or to retaliate against such individuals based on partisan politics.  The Hatch Act of 1939 contains many similar  prohibitions, and carries severe penalties.   See 5  U.S.C. § 7321 – 7326.
          ***If I file an appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and  claim that the agency violated this provision, will the MSPB hear my claim?***
            Under 5 U.S.C. Section 7701(c)(2)(B),  the MSPB may not sustain a personnel action “based on” a PPP.  Generally, a PPP may  be raised as an affirmative defense in an otherwise appealable action in an  appeal filed with MSPB.  An otherwise  appealable action is a personnel action that can be appealed to MSPB on its  own, which would include, for example, a removal or suspension of 15 days or  more, and means that MSPB has jurisdiction in the case.
          As with the other PPPs,  if your claim is filed with MSPB in connection with an otherwise appealable  action, we will hear your PPP claim, but only if it is related to the  underlying personnel action being appealed.   Such PPP claims will not be heard if your appeal is filed under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (violation of veterans’ preference rights), the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act  of 1994 (discrimination based on military service), or the Whistleblower Protection  Act (individual right of action appeals based on retaliation for making  protected disclosures), as such appeals are not filed under MSPB’s otherwise  appealable action authority, but rather specific subject-matter based statutory  authorities.
          If your PPP claim  is not within the MSPB’s jurisdiction as explained above, you may still be able  to file such a PPP claim with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), which is a  separate and independent executive agency.   As noted above, many of the prohibitions contained in this PPP on political  coercion are also covered by the Hatch Act of 1939.  The OSC has authority to investigate potential  Hatch Act violations, and to present such claims to MSPB for consideration.  Instructions for filing a PPP or a Hatch Act  claim with OSC are provided at https://www.osc.gov.
          In addition,  although probationary employees have no statutory right of appeal to MSPB,  under 5 C.F.R. §315.806(b)  they may appeal the termination of their appointment if they allege that the  action was based on partisan political reasons.
          ***Who has the burden of proving a claim under this section?***
            If raised in an otherwise appealable action appeal, a PPP  claim is an affirmative defense.  An appellant  bears the burden of proving such affirmative defenses by preponderant evidence.  Preponderant evidence is defined in Section 1201 of the MSPB’s  regulations as the degree of relevant evidence that a reasonable person,  considering the record as a whole, would accept as sufficient to find that a  contested fact is more likely to be true than untrue.  The MSPB’s regulations can be accessed  through our website at https://www.mspb.gov/appeals/appeals.htm.
          ***Does political coercion  have to be extreme or perpetrated by a supervisor?***The answer to both questions is no.  The coercion does not have to be extreme to  qualify for this PPP, and the employee need not be a supervisor. For example,  in Special Counsel v. Ware, 114  M.S.P.R. 128 (2010), a Contracting Officer Technical Representative was  removed for using her Government computer to send fundraiser emails to 14 or  more individuals, three of whom were not Federal employees, but who she  nevertheless exercised some control over because of her influence over a  contract.  In its decision to remove the  employee, the Board noted its holding in an earlier case, that “[t]he  proscriptions of the Hatch Act fall equally on clerks and managers alike.” (The  improper political activity in Ware was addressed solely under the Hatch  Act, and was not prosecuted as a PPP violation of 5 U.S.C. §  2302(b)(3)).
    In another case, Special Counsel v. Acconcia, 107  M.S.P.R. 60, ¶ 5 (2007), the Board explained that “the coercion of  political contributions[] is one of ‘the most pernicious of the activities made  unlawful by the Hatch Act’” and that a single occasion of soliciting funds from  a subordinate for a political campaign warranted removal, even though the  supervisor did not specifically attach any threats of consequences for failing  to make the requested political contributions.
          ***What penalties are possible for an employee who commits  this prohibited personnel practice?***Violation of this PPP carries potentially  devastating consequences for the offending employee.  This is because when such conduct also  violates the Hatch Act, it carries a presumptive statutory penalty of removal.  Under the Hatch Act, the penalty of removal  may be mitigated to no less than a 30 day suspension by a unanimous vote of the  Board Members.  See 5 U.S.C. §§ 7324(a)(1)  and 7326.


Return to top


About MSPB
			  Accessibility
           Budget and Performance
          FOIA
          Info Quality Standards
          No FEAR Act
    
          Office of the Inspector General
          Privacy Program   
           Technical Support       USA.gov
		OSC.gov
				 Vote.gov


U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
 Agency Contact Center (202) 653-7200
          mspb@mspb.gov