5 C.F.R. § 551.513
Entitlement to other forms of pay
Overtime pay under this subpart shall be paid in addition to all pay, other than overtime pay, to which the employee is entitled under title 5, United States Code, or any other authority. An employee entitled to overtime pay under this subpart and overtime pay under any authority outside of title 5, United States Code, shall be paid under whichever authority provides the greater overtime pay entitlement in the workweek.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2021 · leading case: Alexander v. United States, 28 Fed. Cl. 475 (Fed. Cl. 1993).
Alexander v. United States, 28 Fed. Cl. 475 (Fed. Cl. 1993). “Specifically, 5 C.F.R. § 551.513 provides that: [a]n employee entitled to overtime pay under this subpart [subpart E, of part 551, implementing the FLSA in the Federal sector] and overtime pay under § 550.”
United States Dep't of the Air Force v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 952 F.2d 446 (D.C. Cir. 1992). “One of the OPM regulations, 5 C.F.R. § 551.513 , provides that if an employee is covered by both Acts, the employee will be paid the greater amount if the regulations under one of the Acts would provide a greater benefit than those under the other.”
Lanehart v. Devine, 615 F. Supp. 1300 (D. Maryland 1985). “These instructions have been codified at 5 C.F.R. § 551.513 . Among the many conflicts which have resulted between the provisions of Title 5 and the FLSA in computing pay entitlements under the dual system is the conflict regarding the computation of “hours of work,” which…”
Abramson v. United States, 40 Fed. Cl. 204 (Fed. Cl. 1998). “Plaintiffs have proffered an argument based on 5 C.F.R. § 551.513 (1995), which, they assert, entitles them to overtime pursuant to section 5544(a) regardless of the manner in which the court construes section 305(b).”
Aaron v. United States, 56 Fed. Cl. 98 (Fed. Cl. 2003). “5 C.F.R. § 551.513 (2002). Plaintiff urges that this regulation supports a reading of the FEPCA and FEPA which allows the application of FEPA’s limitations period in this case to the underlying FLSA claim.”
Billings v. United States, 322 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “Appellants also argue that OPM has adopted regulations to ensure that federal employees receive the maximum overtime compensation under any authority which is going to provide the greater overtime entitlement during a work week.”
Amshey v. United States, 26 Cl. Ct. 582 (Ct. Cl. 1992). “See 5 C.F.R. § 551.513 . . D.C.Code § 4-1104(f)(1).”
Alexander v. United States, 32 F.3d 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “Moreover, appellants’ approach directly contravenes the relevant OPM regulation, 5 C.F.R. § 551.513 (1988), which provides that a federal employee is entitled only to the greater of either FLSA overtime or some other statutorily authorized overtime compensation: An employee…”
DeCosta v. United States, 23 Cl. Ct. 582 (Ct. Cl. 1991). “5 C.F.R. § 551.513 . According to plaintiffs, the language “in addition to” in the last sentence means that overtime pay is computed separately from, and without consideration of, other pay, and subsequently is to be added to all other pay.”
Cheung v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021). “” (citing 5 C.F.R. § 551.513 (2021)). The regulation at 5 C.”
Alamo v. United States, 122 Fed. Cl. 638 (Fed. Cl. 2015). “Plaintiffs are also mistaken in arguing that 5 C.F.R. § 551.513 requires additional overtime compensation in this case.”
Adams v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2019). “5 C.F.R. § 551.513 . In addition, an employee may receive Title V premium pay “only to the extent that the payment does not cause the aggregate of basic pay and such premium pay for any pay period for such employee to exceed .”
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.