The fact sheet says that placing an employee in paid, non-duty status pending a disciplinary action “is an immediate, temporary solution to the problem of an employee who should be kept away from the worksite. For example, an agency may place an employee in a paid, non-duty status during an investigation and when the agency believes the employee poses a threat to his own safety or the safety of others, the agency mission, or government systems or property while the investigation is pending.”
However, it adds that “supervisors often place employees on administrative leave rather than utilizing other options that may be more appropriate.” An agency “should monitor the situation and move towards longer-term actions when it is possible, appropriate, and prudent to do so. A longer-term solution could include assigning the employee to duties where he or she is no longer a threat to safety, the agency mission, or government property, if feasible.”
“Where absences are for longer than brief periods, administrative leave is generally inappropriate. Approving officials should also ensure that the granting of administrative leave is not specifically prohibited by law,” it says.
Similarly, it says that an employee may be put on administrative leave for the time necessary to effect an adverse action if management determines that the employee’s continued presence on the job during the notice period: may pose a threat to the employee or others; result in loss or damage to government property; or jeopardize legitimate government interests.
But also similarly, OPM said it “strongly recommends” that agencies take other actions instead, including a reassignment if feasible; allowing the employee to take earned paid leave; or placing the employee on leave without pay. It added that where there is reasonable cause to believe the employee has committed a crime, the agency may shorten the advance notice period.
