The Congress hereby finds and declares—
That effective State and local governmental institutions are essential in the maintenance and development of the Federal system in an increasingly complex and interdependent society.
That, since numerous governmental activities administered by the State and local governments are related to national purpose and are financed in part by Federal funds, a national interest exists in a high caliber of public service in State and local governments.
That the quality of public service at all levels of government can be improved by the development of systems of personnel administration consistent with such merit principles as—
(1) recruiting, selecting, and advancing employees on the basis of their relative ability, knowledge, and skills, including open consideration of qualified applicants for initial appointment;
(2) providing equitable and adequate compensation;
(3) training employees, as needed, to assure high-quality performance;
(4) retaining employees on the basis of the adequacy of their performance, correcting inadequate performance, and separating employees whose inadequate performance cannot be corrected;
(5) assuring fair treatment of applicants and employees in all aspects of personnel administration without regard to political affiliation, race, color, national origin, sex, or religious creed and with proper regard for their privacy and constitutional rights as citizens; and
(6) assuring that employees are protected against coercion for partisan political purposes and are prohibited from using their official authority for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election or a nomination for office.
That Federal financial and technical assistance to State and local governments for strengthening their personnel administration in a manner consistent with these principles is in the national interest.
Notes of Decisions
Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020).
· cites it 2× “ 42 U. S. C. §4701 (Intergovernmental Personnel Program; Congressional Findings and Declara- tion of Policy) 42 U.”
Graham v. Alabama State Employees Ass'n, 991 So. 2d 710 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007).
· cites it 3× “" As authority for this argument, Graham relies on 42 U.S.C. § 4701 et seq. (1970), the "Intergovernmental Personnel Act" ("the IPA").”
Officers for Just. v. Civil S. Com'n, C. & C. San Francisco, 371 F. Supp. 1328 (N.D. Cal. 1973).
“Also, the California Selection Consulting Center, a state agency established under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. § 4701 et seq., has been engaged in the development and the testing of examinations for the selection of individuals for employment in public…”
MacKey v. Shalala, 43 F. Supp. 2d 559 (D. Maryland 1999).
“Ralph Bain began his employment at NIH in 1982 as a special expert, a non-federal position created pursuant to the Intergovernmental Personnel Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4701 et seq. This position was originally designated as a two-year appointment in which Bain acted as Executive…”
Brown v. Ledbetter, 569 F. Supp. 170 (N.D. Ga. 1983).
· cites it 2× “§ 1983 and 42 U.S.C. §§ 4701 , et seq., state law at Ga.”
Dunn v. North Carolina Dep't of Human Resources, 476 S.E.2d 383 (N.C. Ct. App. 1996).
“Petitioner also asserts that the requirements of the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (“Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 4701 et. seq. *162 (1995), and federal and state regulations implementing the Act require the Commission to review whether the most qualified applicant was chosen for the…”
Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. O'connor, 747 F.2d 748 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
“1 (Senate resolution instructing OPM Director that nonpartisan voter registration drives do not violate § 2(6) of the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. § 4701 (6) (1982)). . . This disposition dispels whatever incremental chilling effect the existence of a…”
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.