U.S. Code » Title 5 » Part PART III— EMPLOYEES › Subpart Subpart B— Employment and Retention › Chapter CHAPTER 33— EXAMINATION, SELECTION, AND PLACEMENT › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— EXAMINATION, CERTIFICATION, AND APPOINTMENT

5 U.S.C. § 3310

Preference eligibles; examinations; guards, elevator operators, messengers, and custodians

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar

In examinations for positions of guards, elevator operators, messengers, and custodians in the competitive service (other than for positions of housekeeping aides in the Department of Veterans Affairs), competition is restricted to preference eligibles as long as preference eligibles are available.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: William O. Skillern v. William F. Bolger, Postmaster Gen. of the United States, 725 F.2d 1121 (7th Cir. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
William O. Skillern v. William F. Bolger, Postmaster Gen. of the United States, 725 F.2d 1121 (7th Cir. 1984). “See 5 U.S.C. § 3310 . The Veterans’ Preference Act restricts the competitive examination for custodial positions to “preference eligibles,” who are defined as veterans and certain of their privies.”
McDavis v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 464 F. App'x 864 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “On October 24, 2010, the SSA demoted McDavis to a Paralegal based on two charges: (1) that McDavis violated 5 U.S.C. § 3310 by interviewing and recommending a relative for an SSA position; and (2) that McDavis displayed a lack of candor when questioned about the events leading…”
Vanderford v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 656 F. App'x 537 (Fed. Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “See 5 U.S.C. § 3310 ; 5 C.F.R. §§ 330.401 , 330.”
Kenneth Vanderford v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2015). · cites it 3× “She found that the agency advertised the Housekeeping Aid positions at issue pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 3310 , which provides that, in examinations for certain delineated positions in the competitive service, including Housekeeping Aids, competition is restricted to preference…”
Foster Watkins v. Dep't of the Army (MSPB 2023). “2 BACKGROUND ¶2 On January 13, 2014, the appellant filed an appeal of the agency’s action cancelling his appointment to a Security Guard position under 5 U.S.C. § 3310 . Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 1.”
Darin Young v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2026). “6 The appellant also alleges, for the first time on review, that the agency violated his rights under 5 U.S.C. § 3310 when it considered and selected a nonpreference eligible for the position.”
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.