5 C.F.R. § 550.802

Coverage

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

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this subpart applies to employees, as defined in § 550.803 of this subpart.

(b) This subpart does not apply to—

(1) Employees of the government of the District of Columbia; and

(2) Employees of the Tennessee Valley Authority.

[46 FR 58275, Dec. 1, 1981]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1981–2007 · leading case: James E. Brown v. Sec'y of the Army. Wellington Mitchell v. Sec'y of Com., 918 F.2d 214 (D.C. Cir. 1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

James E. Brown v. Sec'y of the Army. Wellington Mitchell v. Sec'y of Com., 918 F.2d 214 (D.C. Cir. 1990). · cites it 3× “5 C.F.R. § 550.802 (1977) (emphasis added).”

Daniel J. Wells v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 755 F.2d 804 (11th Cir. 1985). · cites it 2× “802 (c) (1980), the relevant regulation at the time, an unjustified or unwarranted personnel action is defined as an act which is found to violate the requirements of a nondiscretionary provision and “thereby resulted in a withdrawal, reduction, or denial of all or any part of…”

Joseph C. Spagnola, Jr. v. David Stockman, Dir., Off. of Mgmt. & Budget, 732 F.2d 908 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “5 C.F.R. § 550.802 (c) (1978); 42 Fed. Reg.”

Summers v. United States, 227 Ct. Cl. 353 (Ct. Cl. 1981). “804 (b)(1) (1977) (current version at 5 C.F.R. § 550.802 (e) (1980)); FPM 550, 8-5(b).”

Pender v. Dist. of Columbia, 430 A.2d 513 (D.C. 1981). · cites it 2× “" 5 C.F.R. § 550.802 (c) (1977). [6] There is no basis for an argument that appellant's administrative remedy was unclear.”

Mitchell v. Dist. of Columbia, 736 A.2d 228 (D.C. 1999). · cites it 2× “2d at 808 (quoting 5 C.F.R. § 550.802 (c) (1980)) (emphasis in Wells ), the court found that: [a]ssignment of overtime flight inspection duties was discretionary, according to applicable regulations, and based on circumstances.”

Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. Dist. of Columbia Water & Sewer Auth., 942 A.2d 1108 (D.C. 2007). “While we are not bound by these regulations, see 5 C.F.R. § 550.802 (b)(1) (2007) (explaining that these federal regulations do not apply to “[e]mployees of the District of Columbia”), they are not contrary to subsequent rules promulgated by the District; they are consistent…”

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.