28 U.S.C. § 536
Positions in excepted service
All positions in the Federal Bureau of Investigation are excepted from the competitive service, and the incumbents of such positions occupy positions in the excepted service.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1968–2026 · leading case: Charles E. Egger v. Harlan C. Phillips, 710 F.2d 292 (7th Cir. 1983).
Charles E. Egger v. Harlan C. Phillips, 710 F.2d 292 (7th Cir. 1983). “, 28 U.S.C. § 536 , as a special factor counseling hesitation in entertaining a Bivens action arising from employment.”
Donald R. Ashton, Jr. v. Benjamin R. Civiletti, 613 F.2d 923 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “But those facts do not prevent the Bureau from giving its employees some security in their jobs.”
Margaret A. Padula v. William Webster, 822 F.2d 97 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “617 (1966) (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 536 (1982)). 4 . Padula also relies on statements by FBI field agents, who told her that: while sexual preference is not a basis for hiring decisions, the FBI does not want to have agents subjected to blackmail or extortion based upon any…”
Byron Bedell v. United States, 669 F. App'x 620 (3d Cir. 2016). “” 28 U.S.C. § 536 (a) (emphasis added). 2 Because this appeal does not present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s May 10, 2016 order dismissing Bedell’s complaint with prejudice.”
King v. United States, 130 Fed. Cl. 476 (Fed. Cl. 2017). “Rather, the plaintiffs’ personnel records show that they were generally appointed under the legal authority in 28 U.S.C. § 536 , which states that “[a]ll positions in the [FBI] are excepted from the competitive service,” and their positions were classified under the General…”
Joseph Feit v. John Ward, 886 F.2d 848 (7th Cir. 1989). “Recognizing that Feit was a seasonal employee and Egger was a full-time FBI Agent, we note that both were members of the “excepted” civil service, see 28 U.S.C. § 536 (FBI Agents) and 5 C.F.R.”
BGHA, LLC v. City of Universal City, 340 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 2003). “Upon the parties’ consent, and consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 536 (i), the case was assigned to a magistrate judge for all purposes, including trial and entry of judgment.”
Louis S. Bullard v. William H. Webster, 623 F.2d 1042 (5th Cir. 1980). “Also, Bullard is not a “preference eligible veteran,” a status that would afford him additional protections.”
Roberts v. United States Dep't of Just., 366 F. Supp. 2d 13 (D.D.C. 2005). “” 28 U.S.C. § 536 . Although most excepted service employees are eligible to invoke the above-described procedures relating to prohibited personnel practices, the CSRA expressly provides that FBI excepted service employees do not have this right.”
Lawrence Moon v. Larry Phillips, 854 F.2d 147 (7th Cir. 1988). “Nevertheless, Egger is factually distinguishable from the present case because FBI agents are exempt from civil service protection, see 28 U.S.C. § 536 (1982), and thus Egger, unlike Moon, had no alternative administrative remedy.”
Thomas E. Egan v. Dep't of the Navy, 802 F.2d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1986). “This excludes, inter alia, probationary employees and non-preference eligibles in the excepted service, employees in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 28 U.S.C. § 536 , and members of the uniformed services, 5 U.”
Painter v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 537 F. Supp. 232 (N.D. Ga. 1982). “28 U.S.C. § 536 (1966). There is, therefore, no statutory limitation relevant here on the authority of the appointing official, and generally a discharge may be for good cause or no cause so long as it is not based on impermissible considerations such as race, religion, sex,…”
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.