5 C.F.R. § 300.601
Purpose
The restrictions in this subpart are intended to prevent excessively rapid promotions in competitive service General Schedule positions and to protect competitive principles. They provide a budgetary control on promotion rates and help assure that appointments are made from appropriate registers. These restrictions are in addition to the eligibility requirements for promotion in part 335 of this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1983–2016 · leading case: Hauschild v. United States, 53 Fed. Cl. 134 (Fed. Cl. 2002).
Hauschild v. United States, 53 Fed. Cl. 134 (Fed. Cl. 2002). “1987); see also 5 C.F.R. § 300.601 (time-in-grade restriction implemented to provide budgetary control on promotion rates and assures appropriate appointments).”
James B. Dowd, Jr. v. The United States, 713 F.2d 720 (Fed. Cir. 1983). “5 C.F.R. § 300.601 (b)(1). . Rosano v. Department of the Navy, 699 F.”
Girdis v. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n, 688 F. Supp. 40 (D. Mass. 1987). “5 C.F.R. § 300.601 (a). 1 The federal time-in-grade restrictions were a bona fide, gender-neutral, acceptable personnel policy.”
Rogers v. Marsh, 573 F. Supp. 635 (E.D. Ark. 1983). “Rogers was ruled ineligible because of failure to meet “Time in Grade” requirements (5 CFR 300.601, et seq.) because she was a GS-4 and to have been eligible she would have had to have been a GS-5 for at least one year.”
Ibrahim v. United States, 26 Cl. Ct. 359 (Ct. Cl. 1992). “appropriate____” 5 C.F.R. § 300.601 . The court finds that the time-in-grade restrictions are not based on gender, and are permissible exceptions to the Equal Pay Act.”
Lewis v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 750 F.2d 1266 (5th Cir. 1985). “Moreover, the NLRB is constrained in promotions by the provisions of 5 C.F.R. § 300.601 . Pursuant to this provision, a federal employee normally can advance only one grade level each twelve month period.”
Jeffrey S. Sonnega v. Dep't of Just. (MSPB 2016). “4 See 5 C.F.R. §§ 300.601 , 300.605. Rather, as is evident from the vacancy announcement for the GS-14 School Psychologist position, the specialized experience requirement challenged by the appellant is a qualification standard setting the minimum experience required for…”
Wilson Mathews, III v. Smithsonian Inst. (MSPB 2015). “See 5 C.F.R. §§ 300.601 -.606. However, those restrictions are not required in all circumstances.”
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.