5 C.F.R. § 300.101
Purpose
The purpose of this subpart is to establish principles to govern, as nearly as is administratively feasible and practical, the employment practices of the Federal Government generally, and of individual agencies, that affect the recruitment, measurement, ranking, and selection of individuals for initial appointment and competitive promotion in the competitive service or in positions in the government of the District of Columbia required to be filled in the same manner that positions in the competitive service are filled. For the purpose of this subpart, the term “employment practices” includes the development and use of examinations, qualification standards, tests, and other measurement instruments.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 57
cases (18 in the last 5 years), 1975–2024 · leading case: Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020).
Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020). “” 5 CFR §§300.101 , 300.102 (2019). Like the federal statutes and the Presidential Executive Orders, those OPM regula- tions separately prohibit sex discrimination and sexual ori- entation discrimination.”
Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976). “[4] See 5 CFR § 300.101 et seq. (1976). These instructions contain the "regulations" that the Court finds supportive of the District Court's conclusion, which was reached under Title VII, but neither the instructions nor the general regulations are an interpretation of Title VII.”
Chadwell v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 629 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “Chadwell can demonstrate that the agency’s rule constitutes an “employment practice” under 5 C.F.R. § 300.101 . Next, he must show that the employment practice was applied to him in violation of a basic requirement of 5 C.”
James B. Dowd, Jr. v. The United States, 713 F.2d 720 (Fed. Cir. 1983). “103, “Basic requirements,” mandates that an employment practice be (a) based on a “job analysis” that sets out the duties of and qualifications for the position, (b) relevant to performance in the position, and (c) not discriminatory.”
Samuel F. Vesser, Jr. v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 29 F.3d 600 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “According to the Government, this distinction is significant because it is only the latter that may be termed an “employment practice” as defined in 5 C.F.R. § 300.101 , the misapplication of which may be appealed to the Board under 5 C.”
William F. Curtin v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 846 F.2d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1988). “” 5 C.F.R. § 300.101 (1988). Curtin questions OPM’s compliance with these provisions stating that the SQS portion of the examination contains “obvious, significant and substantial laws [sic: flaws] both in its construction and in its implementation.”
Raymond G. Lackhouse v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 734 F.2d 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “The board found that section 3317(b) is not applied by OPM, nor does it constitute an employment practice under 5 C.F.R. § 300.101 (1981). On the basis of these findings the board concluded that Lackhouse failed to meet his burden of proving jurisdiction.”
George Dunbar Prewitt, Jr. v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 133 F.3d 885 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “Prewitt’s race and the race of other applicants for the Equal Opportunity Assistant position. This.court has held that “employment practice” is to be construed broadly and should not be restricted to.”
Bethel v. Jefferson, 589 F.2d 631 (D.C. Cir. 1978). “Quine, Philosophy of Logic 15, 83-87 (1970). . 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(a) (1976).”
James B. Dowd, Jr. v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., Dep't of the Army, 745 F.2d 650 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “839 (1982), which held that the validity of time-in-grade restrictions is not an appealable matter because the application of the restrictions does not constitute an “employment practice” within the meaning of 5 C.F.R. § 300.101 . 1 On appeal, 2 this court, in a split decision…”
Richard S. Bush v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 315 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “He contended that OPM’s suspension of the examination process was an “employment practice” under 5 C.F.R. §§ 300.101 , 300.104(a), which the Board had jurisdiction to review.”
Dow v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 590 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “” See 5 C.F.R. § 300.101 . Dow asked the Board to order the agency to appoint him retroactively to the position and award him back pay, attorneys’ fees and costs.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.