5 U.S.C. § 2301
PROVISIONS TO AUTHORIZE CONTINUED CONFORMITY OF OTHER FEDERAL RETIREMENT SYSTEMS.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 271
cases (72 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020).
Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020). “§411 (a)(1) (Presidential Offices; Em- ployment Discrimination) 5 U. S. C. §2301 (b)(2) (Merit System Principles) 5 U.”
Dep't of the Treasury v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., Nat'l Treasury Employees Union, Intervenor, 837 F.2d 1163 (D.C. Cir. 1988). “NTEU’s proposed provision does not contravene the merit system principles and prohibitions of 5 U.S.C. §§ 2301 and 2302 or regulations issued thereunder, because it merely delimits the pool of candidates for a vacant position that management must consider initially.”
Jackson v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 703 (D.C. Cir. 2007). “See 5 U.S.C. § 2301 (b); Nat'l Treasury Employees Union v.”
Mikhail Semenov v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 2023 MSPB 16 (MSPB 2023). “¶28 On review, the appellant reiterates his argument from below that because the publication standard was “arbitrary,” the agency violated the merit system principle at 5 U.S.C. § 2301 (b)(6), which provides that “[e]mployees should be retained based on the adequacy of their…”
Fedora v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 848 F.3d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “, 5 U.S.C. § 2301 (b)(8) (under governing merit system principles, employees must be “protected against arbitrary action, personal favoritism, or coercion for partisan purposes”).”
Babb v. Wilkie, 140 S. Ct. 1168 (2020). “12106, § 1-102, 3 CFR 263 (1978) (amending Exec. Order No. 11478 to cover discrimination on the basis of age).”
Jeffrey A. Saul v. United States of Am. Ray Larsen Colleen St. Louis John Doe St. Louis, 928 F.2d 829 (9th Cir. 1991). “See 5 U.S.C. § 2301 (b)(2). The prohibited personnel practices include taking any personnel action that “violates any law, rule or regulation implementing, or directly concerning, the merit system principles contained in section 2301.”
Michael E. Hubbard v. U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Adm'r, 809 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “§§ 2302 (b)(8), (10) and (11) (1982), which specify three prohibited personnel practices: the taking of reprisals for protected actions (whistle-blowing), discrimination based on conduct which does not adversely affect an applicant’s performance, and taking a personnel action…”
Emily C. Martin v. Charles A. Lauer, 686 F.2d 24 (D.C. Cir. 1982). “First, this case in its present posture only concerns oral communications with counsel, and not any transmittal of government documents. See note 24 infra.”
Cynthia A. Guillebeau v. Dep't of the Navy, 362 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “Section 4703(c)(5) thus prohibits waiver of any of the merit system principles set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 2301 , which is titled “Merit system principles,” 5 U.”
Ghaly v. United States Dep't of Agric., 228 F. Supp. 2d 283 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). “The first issue with respect to this claim is whether the plaintiffs claim is covered by the CSRA’s complex remedial scheme and jurisdictional predicates.”
Nat'l Treasury Employees Union v. U.S. Customs Serv., 802 F.2d 525 (D.C. Cir. 1986). “” 5 U.S.C. § 2301 (b)(1). IV NTEU argues that this risk, even if it does exist, does not sustain application of the section (b)(2) exemption under Crooker unless the Service is also able to demonstrate that “disclosure significantly risks *530 circumvention of agency regulations…”
— 5 U.S.C. § 2301(a)(1)(11)(A) — 1 case
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.