U.S. Code » Title 5 » Part PART III— EMPLOYEES › Subpart Subpart E— Attendance and Leave › Chapter CHAPTER 61— HOURS OF WORK › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— GENERAL PROVISIONS

5 U.S.C. § 102

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Notwithstanding section 6101 of title 5, United States Code, experiments may be conducted in agenices [agencies] to test flexible schedules which include—“(1) designated hours and days during which an employee on such a schedule must be present for work; and“(2) designated hours during which an employee on such a schedule may elect the time of such employee’s arrival at and departure from work, solely for such purpose or, if and to the extent permitted, for the purpose of accumulating credit hours to reduce the length of the workweek or another workday.An election by an employee referred to in paragraph (2) shall be subject to limitations generally prescribed to ensure that the duties and requirements of the employee’s position are fulfilled.“(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act [enacting section 5550a of this title and this note], but subject to the terms of any written agreement under section 302(a)—“(1) any experiment under subsection (a) of this section may be terminated by the Commission if it determines that the experiment is not in the best interest of the public, the Government, or the employees; or“(2) if the head of an agency determines that any organization within the agency which is participating in an experiment under subsection (a) is being substantially disrupted in carrying out its functions or is incurring additional costs because of such participation, such agency head may—“(A) restrict the employees’ choice of arrival and departure time,“(B) restrict the use of credit hours, or“(C) exclude from such experiment any employee or group of employees.“(c) Experiments under subsection (a) shall terminate not later than the first day of the second pay period beginning after July 4, 1982.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 53 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1963–2025 · leading case: Gary Jackson v. Thomas Modly, 949 F.3d 763 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gary Jackson v. Thomas Modly, 949 F.3d 763 (D.C. Cir. 2020). “”), and, accordingly, that term on its own, contrary to what other courts have concluded, in fact supports an interpretation that Title VII covers uniformed members of the armed forces.”
Minnie M. Honeycutt v. John E. Long, Major Gen. Commander, Army & Air Force Exch. Serv., 861 F.2d 1346 (5th Cir. 1988). · cites it 2× “Both Title VII and the ADEA specifically state that this law identifying the proper defendant applies to personnel actions affecting employees in military departments as defined in 5 U.S.C. § 102 , and in executive agencies as defined by 5 U.”
Tiberio v. Allergy Asthma Immunology of Rochester, 664 F.3d 35 (2d Cir. 2011). “103 (b) provides, in relevant part: This part applies to: (1) Military departments as defined in 5 U.S.C. § 102 ; (2) Executive agencies as defined in 5 U.”
Archer Frey v. State of California State of California Military Dep't, 982 F.2d 399 (9th Cir. 1993). · cites it 2× “The note following 5 U.S.C. § 102 states that military department was defined in that section in order to avoid the necessity for defining “military departments” each time it was used in Title 5.”
United to Protect Democracy v. Presidential Advisory Comm'n on Election Integrity, 288 F. Supp. 3d 99 (D.C. Cir. 2017). “§ 101 , any of the three military departments, see 5 U.S.C. § 102 , does not fall within the definitions of "Government corporation" or "Government controlled corporation" see 5 U.”
Jestine ROPER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dep't OF the ARMY, Defendant-Appellee, 832 F.2d 247 (2d Cir. 1987). “5 U.S.C. § 102 , referring to section 101(7) of title 10, defines military departments as “The Department(s) of the Army * * * Navy [and] * * * the Air Force.”
Craig Basel v. Sec'y of Def., 507 F. App'x 873 (11th Cir. 2013). “§ 2000e-16(a); 5 U.S.C. § 102 (defining the term “military departments” as including the Department of the Navy).”
Johnson v. Alexander, 572 F.2d 1219 (8th Cir. 1978). · cites it 3× “As has been seen, § 717(a) refers to 5 U.S.C. § 102 , and that statute defines the military departments of the United States as being the Army, Navy and Air Force.”
Brown v. USA, 227 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 2000). “§ 2000e-16(a), which precludes the military departments, including the Air Force under 5 U.S.C. § 102 , from engaging in acts of employment discrimination.”
Hodge v. Dalton, 107 F.3d 705 (9th Cir. 1997). · cites it 3× “This definition differed from the definition that Congress used for “military departments” in 5 U.S.C. § 102 . Id. We concluded that “[t]he two differing definitions show that Congress intended a distinction between ‘military departments’ and ‘armed forces,’ the former…”
Alan KAWITT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of Am., Defendant-Appellee, 842 F.2d 951 (7th Cir. 1988). “§ 633a(a); 5 U.S.C. § 102 . But we agree with the Ninth Circuit that the amendment was not meant to extend the protections of the statute to the uniformed personnel, whether active or reserve, of the armed forces.”
Moore v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Military & Vets. Affairs, 216 F. Supp. 2d 446 (E.D. Pa. 2002). “” As defined by Congress in 5 U.S.C. § 102 , the term “military departments” includes the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force.”
Show all 53 citing cases →
— 5 U.S.C. § 102(b) — 2 cases
Reliance Molded Plastics, Inc. v. Jiffy Prods., 215 F. Supp. 402 (D.N.J. 1963).
Baxa Corp. v. McGaw, Inc., 996 F. Supp. 1044 (D. Colo. 1998).
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.