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Nonprecedential Decisions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
    Merit System Principles
      MSP 1 Q & A
MSP 2 Q & A
MSP 3 Q & A
MSP 4 Q & A
MSP 5 Q & A
MSP 6 Q & A
MSP 7 Q & A
MSP 8 Q & A
MSP 9 Q & A
FAQ
    Search & Site Index Merit System Principle 8:   Favoritism and Political Influence
	"Employees should be—
        (A) protected against arbitrary action, personal favoritism, or coercion for partisan political purposes, and
      (B) prohibited from using their official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election or a nomination for election."

	**What is the  intent behind the eighth Merit System Principle?**
This principle has two parts, each with its own intent  and meaning.  Subsection (A) first embodies  the long-standing legal tenet that Federal agencies cannot treat Federal  employees arbitrarily.  See Bush  v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367, 385 (1983); Buggie  v. Department of Health & Human Services,  27 M.S.P.R. 109, 115 (1985) (Johnson, V.C., concurring).  Subsection (A) then incorporates the precept,  first established in the Pendleton Act of 1883, that Federal civil servants  should not be subject to the impulses of the patronage or “spoils” system,  under which political appointees would sometimes coerce the political support  of rank-and-file employees in exchange for continued employment or would allow their  personal affinity to govern employment decisions.  See Lucas, 462 U.S. at 381-82 & n.18;  S. Rep. No. 95-969, at 2 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2723,  2724-26, 2740.
    Subsection (B) bars Federal employees from using their  authority or office to influence nominations and elections.
    **What is the  Merit Systems Protection Board’s (MSPB) role with regard to this Merit System  Principle?**
      As with all the Merit System Principles, Merit System  Principle 8 is not self-executing, Pollard  v. Office of Personnel Management, 52 M.S.P.R.  566, 569-570 (1992).  This means that MSPB protects and implements this principle by  applying other laws and regulations that put the Merit System Principles into  operation as it adjudicates cases within its jurisdiction.
    The protections provided Federal employees in  Subsection (A) are found in several statutes and regulations.  For example, a Federal employee’s right to be  free from political coercion is important enough that it is extended even to  probationary employees who do not have the same appeal rights that tenured  employees have.  Under 5 C.F.R.  § 315.806(b), probationary employees may appeal the termination of  their employment to MSPB if they contend it was “based on partisan political  reasons.”  SeeSweeting v. Department of Justice, 6 M.S.P.R.  715 (1981).
    Additionally, in an adverse action appeal, MSPB may  determine whether the action should be reversed because it constitutes a prohibited  personnel practice (PPP) listed under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b).  Section 2302(b) provides  that “[a]ny employee who has authority to take, direct others to take,  recommend, or approve any personnel action, shall not, with respect to such authority”  engage in certain actions including the following:  (1)(E) discriminate for or against any  employee or applicant for employment on the basis of political affiliation; (3)  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; or (12) take or fail to take any other personnel action if  the taking of or failure to take such action violates any law, rule, or  regulation implementing, or directly concerning, the Merit System Principles  including Merit System Principle 8.   Examples of cases where the Board addressed Merit System Principle 8 include Kauffman  v. Office of Personnel Management, 93 M.S.P.R.  334, ¶¶ 3-4 (2003) and Roane  v. Department of Health & Human Services, 8  M.S.P.R. 339, 342 (1981).   Furthermore, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) may file a complaint  with the Board seeking to impose a disciplinary action on an employee who is  alleged to have committed a PPP.  5 U.S.C.  § 1215.
    The prohibition of Subsection (B) is enforced  primarily through the 1939 Act to Prevent  Pernicious Political Activity, as  amended, which is more commonly known as the “Hatch Act.”  Named after Senator Carl Hatch of New Mexico, the Hatch  Act, in general, prohibits Federal employees from engaging in certain partisan  political activities.  5 U.S.C. §§ 7323, 7324.   For example, employees may not engage in  political activity while on duty or in government buildings, while wearing a uniform  or official insignia identifying the office or position, or while using a  government vehicle.  5 U.S.C. § 7324(a).  The Hatch Act, like Merit System Principle 8,  expressly prohibits Federal employees from using their “official authority or  influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an  election.”  5 U.S.C. § 7323(a)(1).   Furthermore, Federal employees are  prohibited from seeking nomination or running as a candidate for partisan  political office.  5 U.S.C. § 7323(a)(3).  The Hatch Act also has certain “enhanced”  provisions that place additional restrictions on employees of certain agencies,  including MSPB.  5 U.S.C. § 7323(b); 5  C.F.R. § 734.401.
    The OSC has primary responsibility for enforcing the Hatch  Act.  It may exercise this responsibility  by filing a complaint with the Board that charges a Federal civil service  employee with violating the Act.  The OSC  acts as a prosecutor in this context.   The Board then decides whether OSC has proven that the employee violated  the Hatch Act or its implementing regulations, and if so, what penalty to  impose for the violation.  Until 2012 the Act provided that the Board must  impose removal for an employee’s violation of the Hatch Act unless the Board  members find “by unanimous vote” that a lesser penalty, but no less than a  30-day suspension, is warranted.  5 U.S.C. § 7326. Under the Hatch Act Modernization Act, however,  removal is no longer the presumptive penalty for a violation, and instead the  Board has said that it will conduct an independent analysis to determine the  appropriate penalty.  *See Special Counsel v. Lewis*, 121  M.S.P.R. 109 (2014).   Some examples of Hatch Act prosecutions  before the Board are found in Special  Counsel v. Mark, 114 M.S.P.R. 516, ¶2 (2010),  and Special  Counsel v. Briggs, 110 M.S.P.R. 1, ¶6 (2008).   More detailed information on the Hatch  Act’s provisions and OSC’s role in enforcing it may be found at OSC’s website.
    **Does the MSPB have any other role in protecting  this Merit System Principle?**
      Yes.  Congress  has tasked the Board with reviewing regulations issued by the Office of  Personnel Management (OPM).  5 U.S.C. § 1204(f).  The Board will invalidate an OPM regulation where  the provision requires any employee to commit a PPP.  As mentioned earlier, certain actions  concerning the Merit System Principles can constitute PPPs.  The Board has heard challenges to OPM  regulations where individuals have alleged that the regulation would result in  a violation of Merit System Principle 8.   Examples include Vergara  v. Office of Personnel Management, 104 M.S.P.R.  616, ¶4 (2007) (the appellant contended that an OPM regulation  was invalid because it would result in an arbitrary action) and Senior  Executives Association v. Office of Personnel Management, 67 M.S.P.R. 643, 651-52 (1995) (assertion that OPM  regulations affecting an organization’s members violated the protections against  arbitrary action, personal favoritism, or coercion for partisan political  purposes found in section 2301(b)(8)).
    **Has the MSPB studied the issue of neutrality?**
       In the 2013 report, Preserving the Integrity of the Federal Merit Systems: Understanding and Addressing Perceptions of Favoritism, employee survey results reveal that approximately one in four employees believe their supervisor practice favoritism. This report also provides recommendations for agency leaders, supervisors, HRM staff, and employees to reduce the likelihood that favoritism will occur (or be perceived to occur). The bottom line is that selecting officials should be vigilant against being influenced by personal relationships or feelings of affinity, as opposed to focusing on job-related qualifications.
    As mentioned earlier, a 2009 report,Fair and Equitable Treatment:  Progress Made and Challenges Remaining, summarized survey findings indicating that employees generally believed that discrimination based on race, sex and age have decreased, a substantial percentage of Federal employees harbor concerns about the impact on favoritism on management decisions. Similarly, in a 2011 report, Prohibited Personnel Practices: Employee Perceptions, the MSPB reviewed long-term trends of employees’ perceptions that they had been subject to discrimination based on a variety of covered bases, including their political affiliation.  Results showed that, government wide in 2010, 1.1 percent of employees felt they had been subjected to discrimination based on political affiliation. Likewise, less than 1 percent of employees said they experienced political coercion in the preceding two years.


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