Opinion ID: 526018
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Shortage of Funds

Text: 3 Harris and Wise argue that the agency's RIF violated 5 C.F.R. Sec. 351.201(a)(2) because there was no shortage of funds for their particular positions. Harris and Wise contend that it was reversible error to separate them when their positions were funded, and to give their work to employees who had been working on projects that were to lose funding. We disagree. 4 Here, pursuant to section 351.201(a)(2), the agency based its RIF on a shortage of funds. Contrary to Harris' and Wise's arguments, there is no requirement by law that the shortage of funds relate specifically to the positions sought to be abolished. Rather, it is well established that an agency is accorded wide managerial discretion in conducting a RIF. Cooper v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 723 F.2d 1560, 1562 (Fed.Cir.1983). The choice to abolish a specific position pursuant to a RIF based on a shortage of funds clearly is within the managerial discretion of the agency. Harris and Wise have failed to persuade us that the board erred by sustaining that exercise of discretion.