5 C.F.R. § 531.407

Equivalent increase determinations

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) GS employees. For a GS employee, an equivalent increase is considered to occur at the time of any of the following personnel actions:

(1) A within-grade increase, excluding a quality step increase granted under subpart E of this part or an interim within-grade increase if that increase is later terminated under § 531.414;

(2) A promotion (permanent or temporary) to a higher grade, including the promotion of an employee receiving a retained rate under 5 CFR 359.705 or 5 CFR part 536 that does not result in a pay increase, but excluding—

(i) A temporary promotion if, at the end of the that temporary promotion, the employee is returned to the grade from which promoted; or

(ii) A promotion to a higher-graded supervisory or managerial position when the employee does not satisfactorily complete a probationary period established under 5 U.S.C. 3321(a)(2) and is returned to a position at the lower grade held before promotion;

(3) Application of the maximum payable rate rule in § 531.221 that results in a higher step rate within the employee's GS grade (or an increase for a GM employee to the next higher rate within the grade), except for application of that rule in a demotion to the extent that the employee's rate of basic pay after demotion does not exceed the lowest step rate that equals or exceeds the employee's rate of basic pay immediately before the demotion;

(4) Application of the superior qualifications and special needs pay-setting authority in § 531.212 that results in a higher step rate within the employee's GS grade (or an increase for a GM employee to the next higher rate within the grade); or

(5) Application of the qualifications pay authority in 5 U.S.C. 9814 to an employee of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, when the employee fulfills the 1-year service requirement in the position for which qualifications pay was paid or in a successor position.

(b) Non-GS employees who move to the GS pay system. When an employee performs service under a non-GS pay system for Federal employees and that service is potentially creditable towards a GS within-grade increase waiting period, an equivalent increase is considered to occur at the time of any of the following personnel actions in the non-GS pay system:

(1) A promotion to a higher grade or work level within the non-GS pay system (unless the promotion is cancelled and the employee's rate of basic pay is redetermined as if the promotion had not occurred); or

(2) An opportunity to receive a within-level or within-range increase that results in forward movement in the applicable range of rates of basic pay (including an increase granted immediately upon movement to the non-GS pay system from another pay system—e.g., to account for the value of accrued within-grade increases under the former pay system or to provide a promotion-equivalent increase), where “forward movement in the applicable range” means any kind of increase in the employee's rate of basic pay other than an increase that is directly and exclusively linked to—

(i) A general structural increase in the employee's basic pay schedule or rate range (including the adjustment of a range minimum or maximum); or

(ii) The employee's placement under a new basic pay schedule within the same pay system, when such placement results in a nondiscretionary basic pay increase to account for occupational pay differences.

(c) Locality rates and special rates. Since locality rates under subpart F of this part and special rates under 5 CFR part 530, subpart C, and similar rates under other legal authority (e.g., 38 U.S.C. 7455) are not rates of basic pay for the purpose of this subpart, increases in pay resulting from an adjustment in an employee's locality payment or special rate supplement or from placement on a new locality rate or special rate schedule are not considered in making equivalent increase determinations.

[70 FR 31301, May 31, 2005, as amended at 70 FR 74995, Dec. 19, 2005; 73 FR 66153, Nov. 7, 2008]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1966–1986 · leading case: Mrs. Frances B. Chafin v. Dr. Harry D. Pratt, 358 F.2d 349 (5th Cir. 1966).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mrs. Frances B. Chafin v. Dr. Harry D. Pratt, 358 F.2d 349 (5th Cir. 1966). · cites it 5× “531-1, and the Civil Service Commission, 5 CFR § 531.407 (a), Plaintiff’s supervisor determined that her work did not meet this standard and notified her in writing of the reasons for this determination.”

Wilson C. Schramm v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., Intervenor, 682 F.2d 85 (3rd Cir. 1982). “5 C.F.R. § 531.407 (b)(2) (1978) provided: (b) An agency shall establish procedures that ensure: (2) That at least 60 days in advance of the date on which an employee will complete his waiting period, his supervisor shall inform him of any factor that raises a question about the…”

Ayub K. Ommaya v. Nat'l Institutes of Health, Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 726 F.2d 827 (D.C. Cir. 1984). “received a 60-day advance notice of performance deficiencies required by the governing regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 531.407 (b), he was provided a 60-day review period by NIH within which to improve his performance.”

Holder v. Dep't of the Army, 229 Ct. Cl. 417 (Ct. Cl. 1982). “§ 5335 (a)(3)(B) (1976) and 5 C.F.R. § 531.407 (a) (1981), responsibility is assigned to the head of the agency or the delegated supervisory official to determine what constitutes an acceptable level of competence for a civilian employee and whether such an employee is…”

Scott v. Claytor, 469 F. Supp. 22 (D.D.C. 1978). “Plaintiff will still have recourse to the courts after final agency action on the remand.”

Arthur J. Zeizel v. Samuel R. Pierce, Sec'y, Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 784 F.2d 405 (D.C. Cir. 1986). “3 On June 25, 1975 the FEAA determined that the denial of the within-grade pay increase was not in compliance with 5 C.F.R. § 531.407 and remanded the case to the agency so that there could be compliance with procedural requirements.”

Judkins, 223 Ct. Cl. 660 (Ct. Cl. 1980). · cites it 2× “5 C.F.R. § 531.407 (5) (1979). In this case, plaintiffs supervisor failed to notify him until May 23, 1977.”

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.