20 U.S.C. § 107d

Expenditures

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 20 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Personal services, rent, printing, etc.

The Secretary is authorized to make such expenditures out of any money appropriated therefor (including expenditures for personal services and rent at the seat of government and elsewhere, books of reference and periodicals, for printing and binding, and for traveling expenses) as he may deem necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter.

(b) Preference to blind persons in employment

The Secretary shall, in employing such additional personnel as may be necessary, give preference to blind persons who are capable of discharging the required duties.

(June 20, 1936, ch. 638, § 4, formerly § 5, 49 Stat. 1560; 1946 Reorg. Plan No. 2, § 6, eff. July 16, 1946, 11 F.R. 7873, 60 Stat. 1095; 1953 Reorg. Plan No. 1, §§ 5, 8, eff. Apr. 11, 1953, 18 F.R. 2053, 67 Stat. 631; renumbered § 4 and amended Pub. L. 93–516, title II, §§ 206, 208(d), Dec. 7, 1974, 88 Stat. 1626, 1629; Pub. L. 93–651, title II, §§ 206, 208(d), Nov. 21, 1974, 89 Stat. 2–11, 2–14.)Editorial NotesCodification

The content of Pub. L. 93–516, including provisions of sections 206 and 208(d) thereof which amended and renumbered this section, were originally contained in H.R. 14225, 93rd Congress, Second Session, which was pocket-vetoed during the 31-day intrasession adjournment of the 93rd Congress for the Congressional elections in November, 1974. See 1974 Amendment note below.

Pursuant to an order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Kennedy v. Jones, D.C.D.C. 1976, 412 F.Supp. 353) H.R. 14225 was deemed to have become law without the approval of the President on Nov. 21, 1974, and was given the designation Pub. L. 93–651. Therefore, for purposes of codification, this section should be deemed to have been amended and renumbered by Pub. L. 93–651, title II, §§ 206, 208(d), Nov. 21, 1974, 89 Stat. 2–11, 2–14, in exactly the same manner as it was amended and renumbered by Pub. L. 93–516.

Amendments

1974—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 93–516, § 208(d), struck out requirement that at least 50 percent of the additional personnel be blind persons. An identical amendment was made by Pub. L. 93–651. See Codification note above.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesTransfer of Functions

For transfer of functions, see note set out under section 107a of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 25 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Kentucky v. United States Ex Rel. Hangel, 759 F.3d 588 (6th Cir. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kentucky v. United States Ex Rel. Hangel, 759 F.3d 588 (6th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “See 20 U.S.C. § 107d — 1; 34 C.F.R. §§ 395.33 (b), 395.”

Massachusetts Elected Comm. of Blind Vendors v. Matava, 482 F. Supp. 1186 (D. Mass. 1980). · cites it 4× “The Secretary shall then convene a three member arbitration panel pursuant to 20 U.S.C.A. § 107d — 2, said panel to consist of one member designated by the state licensing agency, one member designated by the blind licensee, and a neutral member jointly designated by the other…”

Commonwealth of Kentucky, Educ. Cabinet, Dep't for the Blind v. United States, 424 F.3d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “See 20 U.S.C. § 107d — 1(b); see also 34 C.F.”

Comm. of Blind Vendors of the Dist. of Columbia v. Dist. of Columbia, 28 F.3d 130 (D.C. Cir. 1994). “As discussed earlier, the procedure requires that an aggrieved vendor submit his initial grievance to the SLA.”

NISH v. Cohen, 247 F.3d 197 (4th Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “See 20 U.S.C. § 107d 3(e). 5 DOE regulations offer two options by which a federal agency may implement the priority mandated for blind vendors.”

Sauer v. United States Dep't of Educ., 668 F.3d 644 (9th Cir. 2012). “First, the Act provides that when a state licensing agency determines that a federal entity is violating the Act, the state licensing agency “may file a complaint with the Secretary who shall convene a panel to arbitrate the dispute.”

Irvin Fillinger v. The Cleveland Soc'y for the Blind, 587 F.2d 336 (6th Cir. 1978). “See 20 U.S.C. §§ 107d — 1, 107d-2. The 1974 amendments authorize the parties to obtain judicial review of the *338 decision of the arbitrators under the Administrative Procedure Act, Title 5, Ch.”

State ex rel. the Kansas Dep't for Child. & Families v. United States ex rel. Carter, 192 F. Supp. 3d 1184 (D. Kan. 2016). “(quoting 20 U.S.C. § 107d—2(b)), “Accordingly, not every complaint that a state licensing agency may have against a federal agency is-arbi-trable, but only those complaints that allege a violation of the RSA or its attendant regulations.”

Georgia Dep't of Human Resources v. Bell, 528 F. Supp. 17 (N.D. Ga. 1981). “In sum, all motions before the Court are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: (1) The State licensing agency is ORDERED to file a complaint with the Secretary, pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 107d — 1(b), to seek a determination as to whether the Marine Corps’ termination of…”

Kansas v. United States, 171 F. Supp. 3d 1145 (D. Kan. 2016). “The Court has decided that Congress reserved the merits of this question for an arbitration panel convened by the DOE’s Secretary under 20 U.S.C. §§ 107d — 1(b), 107d-2 of the RSA.”

Comm. of Blind Vendors v. Dist. of Columbia, 736 F. Supp. 292 (D.D.C. 1990). “20 U.S.C. § 107d — 4; 34 C.F.R. §§ 395.3 (a)(7), 395.”

Premo v. Martin, 119 F.3d 764 (9th Cir. 1997). “20 U.S.C. § 107d—2(b)(1). Rather than prohibiting individuals with pre-existing relationships from becoming panel members, the Act instead seeks to neutralize any bias by requiring the parties to agree on a third panel member, the chair.”

Show all 25 citing cases →

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.