(a) Job analysis. Each employment practice of the Federal Government generally, and of individual agencies, shall be based on a job analysis to identify:
(1) The basic duties and responsibilities;
(2) The knowledges, skills, and abilities required to perform the duties and responsibilities; and
(3) The factors that are important in evaluating candidates. The job analysis may cover a single position or group of positions, or an occupation or group of occupations, having common characteristics.
(b) Relevance. (1) There shall be a rational relationship between performance in the position to be filled (or in the target position in the case of an entry position) and the employment practice used. The demonstration of rational relationship shall include a showing that the employment practice was professionally developed. A minimum educational requirement may not be established except as authorized under section 3308 of title 5, United States Code.
(2) In the case of an entry position the required relevance may be based upon the target position when—
(i) The entry position is a training position or the first of a progressive series of established training and development positions leading to a target position at a higher level; and
(ii) New employees, within a reasonable period of time and in the great majority of cases, can expect to progress to a target position at a higher level.
(c) Equal employment opportunity and prohibited forms of discrimination. An employment practice must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy and gender identity), national origin, age (as defined by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended), disability, genetic information (including family medical history), marital status, political affiliation, sexual orientation, labor organization affiliation or nonaffiliation, status as a parent, or any other non-merit-based factor, or retaliation for exercising rights with respect to the categories enumerated above, where retaliation rights are available. Employee selection procedures shall meet the standards established by the “Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures,” where applicable.
[40 FR 15380, Apr. 7, 1975, as amended at 43 FR 38310, Aug. 25, 1978; 79 FR 43922, July 29, 2014]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
106
cases (
44 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case:
Connecticut v. Teal, 457 U.S. 440 (1982).
Connecticut v. Teal, 457 U.S. 440 (1982).
· cites it 2× “[4] The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other federal enforcement agencies have adopted the "bottom-line" principle i.”
William F. Curtin v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 846 F.2d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
· cites it 3× “” 5 C.F.R. § 300.103 (a) (1988). And there must be a “rational relationship between performance in the position to be filled .”
Meeker v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 319 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
· cites it 21× “Those applicants, referred to as the Azdell class, argued inter alia that the 1996 formula violated 5 C.F.R. § 300.103 , which requires that any OPM employment.”
Dep't of the Treasury, U.S. Customs Serv., Washington, D.C. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., Nat'l Treasury Employees Union, Intervenor, 762 F.2d 1119 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
· cites it 4× “5 C.F.R. § 300.103 (a) (1983). Because the union proposal would apply to all bargaining-unit positions in the agency, including positions as diverse as secretary, mail handler, pilot, and customs inspector, Treasury argues that it is not and cannot possibly be based on analysis…”
Chadwell v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 629 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
· cites it 2× “Next, he must show that the employment practice was applied to him in violation of a basic requirement of 5 C.F.R. § 300.103 . This second step, however, is not implicated by this appeal.”
Hamilton v. Geithner, 616 F. Supp. 2d 49 (D.D.C. 2009).
· cites it 2× “be based on a job analysis” that identifies “[t]he basic duties and responsibilities” of the position, “[t]he knowledge[ ], skills, and abilities required to perform their duties and responsibilities,” and “factors that are important in evaluating candidates,” 5 C.F.R. § 300.103…”
Taydus v. Cisneros, 902 F. Supp. 288 (D. Mass. 1995).
· cites it 3× “CSRA regulations additionally provide that a candidate who believes that an employment practice as applied to him by the Office of Personnel Management, as opposed to the particular agency, violates the basic requirements of 5 C.F.R. § 300.103 may to appeal to the MSPB.”
Vanguard Just. Soc'y, Inc. v. Hughes, 471 F. Supp. 670 (D. Maryland 1979).
“5 C.F.R. § 300.103 (b) (1974). 88 . Judge Bryant stated (at 505) that he therefore did not need to reach plaintiff’s claims that that requirement violated the federal Constitution.”
Samuel F. Vesser, Jr. v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 29 F.3d 600 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
“The second step in the jurisdiction analysis is whether the application of the employment practice violates a “basic requirement” because only those who believe that an employment practice has been applied to him in a manner that violates a “basic requirement,” as defined in 5…”
Arthur A. Maule v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 812 F.2d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
· cites it 2× “Nevertheless, it is not difficult to sift through his complaints and discern that Maulé raised an important question from the very beginning which the board has never addressed: Did OPM apply an employment practice to appellant within the meaning of 5 C.F.R. § 300.103 . If so,…”
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.