Section 3(e)(2) of the Act authorizes the application of the provisions of the Act to any person employed by the Government of the United States, as specified in that section.
(a) Office of Personnel Management. Section 4(f) of the Act authorizes the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to administer the provisions of the Act. OPM is the administrator of the provisions of the Act with respect to any person employed by an agency, except as specified in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section.
(b) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission administers the equal pay provisions contained in section 6(d) of the Act.
(c) The Department of Labor administers the Act for the government of the District of Columbia and the following United States Government entities:
(1) The Library of Congress;
(2) The United States Postal Service;
(3) The Postal Rate Commission; and
(4) The Tennessee Valley Authority.
(d) Office of Compliance. The Congressional Accountability Act of 1995, as amended, sections 1301 et seq. of title 2, United States Code, extends rights and protections of the FLSA to employees of the following United States Government entities, and assigns certain administrative responsibilities to the Office of Compliance:
(1) The United States House of Representatives;
(2) The United States Senate;
(3) The Capitol Guide Service;
(4) The Capitol Police;
(5) The Congressional Budget Office;
(6) The Office of the Architect of the Capitol;
(7) The Office of the Attending Physician; and
(8) The Office of Compliance.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case:
Abbey v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 430 (Fed. Cl. 2011).
Abbey v. United States, 99 Fed. Cl. 430 (Fed. Cl. 2011).
“See 5 C.F.R. § 551.102 ; see also 29 U.S.C. § 204 (f); Billings v.”
Amos v. United States, 13 Cl. Ct. 442 (Ct. Cl. 1987).
“” Under the regulation an employee is one who is employed in an executive agency; as a civilian in a military department; in a nonappropriated fund instrumentality of an executive agency or a military department; or in a unit of the legislative or judicial branch of the…”
Grandits v. United States, 66 Fed. Cl. 519 (Fed. Cl. 2005).
“§ 204 (f) (2000) (enumerating certain exceptions not applicable in the present case); 5 C.F.R. § 551.102 (a) (Jan. 1, 2005). OPM’s 1989 regulations, the year Mr.”
Hickman v. United States, 43 Fed. Cl. 424 (Fed. Cl. 1999).
“The Title 5 regulations define the word “employ” as “to engage a person in an activity that is for the benefit of an agency, as defined in this part, and includes any hours of work that are suffered or permitted.”
Shea v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2019).
“§ 204 (f); 5 C.F.R. § 551.102 (a). OPM’s regulations presume that every employee is covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act “unless the employing agency correctly determines that the employee clearly meets the requirements of one or more of the exemptions [to the FLSA].”
1 v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021).
“§ 204 (f) (providing that, with certain exceptions, “the Director of the Office of Personnel Management is authorized to administer the provisions of this chapter with respect to any individual employed by the United States”); see also 5 C.F.R. §§ 551.102 , 551.103. In response…”
Bridges v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021).
“§ 204 (f)); see also 5 C.F.R. §§ 551.102 , 551.103. OPM is required to do so consistently with “the rulings, regulations, interpretations, and opinions of the Secretary of Labor which are applicable in other sectors of the economy,” see Billings v.”
Alkire v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2022).
“§ 204 (f)); see also 5 C.F.R. §§ 551.102 , 551.103. OPM regulations, contrary to Plaintiffs’ position, “exclude[]” preliminary and postliminary activity from compensable hours of work “even if it occurs between periods of activity that are compensable as hours of work.”
Doe No. 1 v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2022).
“§ 204 (f) (providing that, with certain exceptions, “the Director of the Office of Personnel Management is authorized to administer the provisions of this chapter with respect to any individual employed by the United States”); see also 5 C.F.R. §§ 551.102 (a), 551.103. In…”
BAYTOS v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2025).
“5 C.F.R. § 551.102 . Because the Plaintiffs are employees of the BOP, which is an agency of the federal government, the court must apply OPM regulations rather than DOL regulations.”
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.