5 U.S.C. § 3101
General authority to employ
Each Executive agency, military department, and the government of the District of Columbia may employ such number of employees of the various classes recognized by chapter 51 of this title as Congress may appropriate for from year to year.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1967–2022 · leading case: Bowers v. Wynne, 615 F.3d 455 (6th Cir. 2010).
Bowers v. Wynne, 615 F.3d 455 (6th Cir. 2010). “§ 709 , to regulate National Guard technicians, whereas the ART position is subject to the general employment authority of the military departments in 5 U.S.C. § 3101 . One of the authorities cited by the district court in Leistiko for the proposition that a National Guard…”
United States v. Janssen, 73 M.J. 221 (C.A.A.F. 2014). “§ 301 (2012), which empowers a department head to “prescribe regulations for the government of his department [and] the conduct of its employees,” and on 5 U.S.C. § 3101 (2012), which grants each executive agency the authority to “employ such number of employees .”
Daniel Moncada v. Exec. Off. of the President, Off. of Admin., 2022 MSPB 25 (MSPB 2022). “§ 107 (b)(2), which provides that the President or his designee is authorized to “employ” individuals in OA in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 3101 , which provides general employment authority 5 It further asserts that the President “must have the authority to manage his staff as he…”
Olimpia TOVAR, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL Serv., Respondent, 3 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 1993). “6, 1992) (Appropriation through September 30, 1993); see also 5 U.S.C.A. § 3101 (note) (West Supp.1993), Hampton v.”
Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. Martin R. Hoffman, Sec'y of the Army, 543 F.2d 930 (D.C. Cir. 1976). “Under 5 U.S.C. § 3101 , military departments are authorized to employ the number of civilian employees for *938 which Congress provides appropriations.”
James B. Dowd, Jr. v. The United States, 713 F.2d 720 (Fed. Cir. 1983). “5 C.F.R. §§ 300.601-300.605 . . See Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1952, ch.”
Edward Jarecki v. United States, 590 F.2d 670 (7th Cir. 1979). “See “Whitten Amendment”, 5 U.S.C. § 3101 (1970); 5 C.F.R. §§ 300.601-05 .”
Mundy v. Weinberger, 554 F. Supp. 811 (D.D.C. 1983). “The CSC responded on March 16, 1977 that the two-grade advance would circumvent the Whitten Amendment, 5 U.S.C. § 3101 note, and therefore declined to promote Mundy or evaluate and classify the Court Executive position.”
Atkinson v. City of Dayton, 99 F. Supp. 2d 846 (S.D. Ohio 1998). “§§ 1983 , 1988, and 1441; 5 U.S.C. § 3101 ; 2 U.S.C. § 601 ; and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”
Boyce v. United States, 523 F. Supp. 1012 (E.D.N.Y 1981). “” 5 U.S.C. § 3101 note. See 5 C.F.R. § 300.”
Nat'l Treasury Employees Union v. Reagan, 663 F.2d 239 (D.C. Cir. 1981). “§ 3301 (1) (1976), and the authority of department heads to appoint inferior officers under Article II and 5 U.S.C. § 3101 , is not actually present in these cases.”
Skrobot v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 475 (Ct. Cl. 1975). “Federal Personnel Manual (1973), In conjunction with the Supplemental Appropriation Act of 1952, as amended (revision note to 5 U.S.C. § 3101 (1970)) required annual review of positions “to assure that the position description is accurate and classification is proper.”
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.