5 U.S.C. § 3320
Excepted service; government of the District of Columbia; selection
The nominating or appointing authority shall select for appointment to each vacancy in the excepted service in the executive branch and in the government of the District of Columbia from the qualified applicants in the same manner and under the same conditions required for the competitive service by sections 3308 through 3319 of this title. This section does not apply to an appointment required by Congress to be confirmed by, or made with the advice and consent of, the Senate.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1978–2024 · leading case: Gingery v. Dep't of Def., 550 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Gingery v. Dep't of Def., 550 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “§ 3318 (b) when applied to the excepted service via 5 U.S.C. § 3320 . Mr. Gingery also argues that "the FCIP is unlawful in its entirety" because it violates § 3302(1)'s requirement that exceptions to the competitive service be "necessary" for "conditions of good administration.”
Guy C. Patterson v. Dep't of the Interior, 424 F.3d 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “In addition, although on its face section 3309 appears to apply only to positions within the competitive service, Congress, throtígh 5 U.S.C. § 3320 , has extended veterans’ preference rights to the excepted service as well: The nominating or appointing authority shall select…”
Jephunneh Lawrence v. Elmer B. Staats, 640 F.2d 427 (D.C. Cir. 1981). “…on the manner of selection. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 3308-3318 (1976) (describing selection process for competitive service); 5 U.S.C. § 3320 (1976) (applying §§ 3308-3318 to excepted-service appointments in the executive branch); 5 U.S.C. § 3320 note (1976) (historical and revision…”
Vores v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 324 F. App'x 883 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “§ 2302 , and 5 U.S.C. § 3320 . Those statutes, however, do not override the VHA’s discretion to appoint residents without regard to civil service requirements; they therefore do not grant Dr.”
Dean v. Dep't of Labor, 808 F.3d 497 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “Under 5 U.S.C. § 3320 , these veterans’ preference programs also apply to hiring in the excepted service.”
Morse v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 621 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “See 5 U.S.C. § 3320 . Even if the FAA employees and applicants gained these benefits, however, the Board did not necessarily have jurisdiction over violations of these specifically enumerated provisions.”
Jarrard v. Dep't of Just., 669 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “Jarrard complained that 5 U.S.C. § 3320 1 required that the agencies follow the veterans’ passover provisions of 5 U.”
John S. Pope v. United States Dep't of Transp., 421 F.3d 480 (7th Cir. 2005). “htm; see also 5 U.S.C. § 3320 ; Hillman v. TVA, 95 M.S.”
David Dean v. Dep't of Labor, 2015 MSPB 22 (MSPB 2015). “7 While this restriction, on its face, applies only to competitive service appointments, it also applies to appointments in the excepted service pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 3320 . See Gingery v. Department of Defense, 550 F.”
Young v. Fed. Mediation & Conciliation Serv., 66 F. App'x 858 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “” 1 While the veterans preference regulations are applicable to some positions in the excepted service, see 5 U.S.C. § 3320 , Congress has authority to remove certain positions from the scope of otherwise applicable regulations.”
Bumgardner v. Navy (Fed. Cir. 2024). “See 5 U.S.C. § 3320 ; 5 C.F.R. § 302.101 ; Jarrard v.”
Bumgardner v. Navy (Fed. Cir. 2024). “See 5 U.S.C. § 3320 ; 5 C.F.R. § 302.101 ; Jarrard v.”
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.