5 U.S.C. § 3308
Competitive service; examinations; educational requirements prohibited; exceptions
The Office of Personnel Management or other examining agency may not prescribe a minimum educational requirement for an examination for the competitive service except when the Office decides that the duties of a scientific, technical, or professional position cannot be performed by an individual who does not have a prescribed minimum education. The Office shall make the reasons for its decision under this section a part of its public records.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1981–2024 · leading case: Stewart v. Smith, 673 F.2d 485 (D.C. Cir. 1982).
Stewart v. Smith, 673 F.2d 485 (D.C. Cir. 1982). “Similarly, the Commission would review educational requirements to determine whether they complied with 5 U.S.C. § 3308 which prohibits minimum educational requirements “except when [the Commission] determines that the duties of a scientific, technical, or professional position…”
Dean v. Dep't of Labor, 808 F.3d 497 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “§ 3302 (1), authorizing the President to except positions from the competitive service, and 5 U.S.C. § 3308 , limiting OPM’s ability to include minimum educational requirements for positions in the competitive service that are subject to examination.”
Burroughs v. Dep't of the Army, 445 F. App'x 347 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “His argument, however, is rebutted by the plain text of the controlling statute, 5 U.S.C. § 3308 , which explains that an agency may impose a minimum education requirement when it “decides that the duties of a scientific, technical, or professional position cannot be performed…”
David Dean v. Dep't of Labor, 2015 MSPB 22 (MSPB 2015). “5 U.S.C. § 3308 is not a statute relating to veterans’ preference.”
Asatov v. Agency for Int'l Dev., 542 F. App'x 937 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “Asatov asserted violations of 5 U.S.C. §§ 3308 and 3318. The AJ decided not to hold a hearing because the issues were purely legal.”
Virginia M. St. Peter v. Sec'y of the Army, 659 F.2d 1133 (D.C. Cir. 1981). “See 5 U.S.C. § 3308 (1976). Staples had taken more job-related courses than had St.”
Michael Beech v. Dep't of the Air Force (MSPB 2023). “He further alleged that the agency failed to apply an OPM policy relating to 5 U.S.C. § 3308 , because it did not conduct a comprehensive evaluation of his background during the selection process.”
Eric Williams v. Dep't of Def. (MSPB 2022). “The requirements of 5 U.S.C. §§ 3308 through 3318 apply to excepted service examinations.”
Burroughs v. Dep't of the Army, 446 F. App'x 278 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “His argument, however, is rebutted by the plain text of the controlling statute, 5 U.S.C. § 3308 , which explains that the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) may impose a minimum education requirement when it “decides that the duties of a scientific, technical, or…”
Eric Williams v. Dep't of Def., 2022 MSPB 29 (MSPB 2022). “For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the initial decision AS MODIFIED to address the appellant’s claim of an alleged violation of 5 U.S.C. § 3308 . BACKGROUND ¶2 On November 14, 2018, the agency announced seven competitive service vacancies for GS-9 Logistics Management…”
Stewart v. Smith, 673 F.2d 486 (D.C. Cir. 1982). “Similarly, the Commission would review educational requirements to determine whether they complied with 5 U.S.C. § 3308 which prohibits minimum educational requirements “except when [the Commission] determines that the duties of a scientific, technical, or professional position…”
Morgan v. Becerra (D.N.M. 2024). “See 5 U.S.C. § 3308 ; 5 C.F.R. §§ 300.103 (b)(1), (c).”
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.