5 U.S.C. § 404

SPECIAL PAY ADJUSTMENTS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN SELECTED CITIES.

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

“(a) A law enforcement officer shall be paid any applicable special pay adjustment in accordance with the provisions of this section, but such special pay adjustment shall be reduced by the amount of any applicable interim geographic adjustment under section 302 of this Act [section 529 [title III, § 302] of Pub. L. 101–509, set out as a note under section 5304 of this title], any applicable locality-based comparability payment under section 5304 of title 5, United States Code, as amended by section 101 of this Act, and, to the extent determined appropriate by the Office of Personnel Management, any applicable special rate of pay under section 5305 of such title, as so amended, or any similar provision of law (other than section 403).“(b)(1) Except as provided in subsection (a), effective on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after January 1, 1992, each law enforcement officer whose post of duty is in one of the following areas shall receive an adjustment, which shall be a percentage of the officer’s rate of basic pay, as follows:

“Area	Differential
Boston-Lawrence-Salem, MA–NH Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area	16%
Chicago-Gary-Lake County, IL–IN–WI Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area	4%
Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside, CA Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area	16%
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY–NJ–CT Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area	16%
Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton, PA–NJ–DE–MD Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area	4%
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area	16%
San Diego, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area	8%
Washington-Baltimore DC–MD–VA–WV Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area	4%

“(2) In the case of any area specified in paragraph (1) that includes a portion, but not all, of a county, the Office of Personnel Management may, at the request of the head of 1 or more law enforcement agencies, extend the area specified in paragraph (1) to include, for the purposes of this section, the entire county, if the Office determines that such extension would be in the interests of good personnel administration. Any such extension shall be applicable to each law enforcement officer whose post of duty is in the area of the extension.“(c)(1) A special pay adjustment under this section shall be administered, to the extent practicable, in the same manner as a locality-based comparability payment under section 5304 of title 5, United States Code, as amended by section 101 of this Act, and shall be considered part of basic pay to the same degree as such a locality-based comparability payment.“(2) The Office of Personnel Management may prescribe such regulations as it considers necessary concerning the payment of special pay adjustments to law enforcement officers under this section.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2023–2026 · leading case: Jason Leopold v. J. Thomas Manger, 102 F.4th 491 (D.C. Cir. 2024).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jason Leopold v. J. Thomas Manger, 102 F.4th 491 (D.C. Cir. 2024). · cites it 2× “” 5 U.S.C. § 404 (e)(1)(C). Mr. Leopold argues that this provision of the Inspector General Act governs 21 the Inspector General of the Capitol Police under 2 U.”

Faecher v. Comm'r of the Soc. Sec. Admin. (D.S.C. 2024). · cites it 2× “5 U.S.C. § 404 (a)(1), 5 U.S.C. § 406 (a)(4).”

USA v. Colorado Dep't of Labor & Emp., Div. of Workers' Comp. (D. Colo. 2023). “5 U.S.C. § 404 (a)(1). In August 2021, the SSA-OIG began an audit entitled The Impact of Workers’ Compensation and Public Disability Benefits’ Reverse Offset Plans on the Disability Insurance Program (the “Audit”) (ECF No.”

McGill v. Seehase (D.N.M. 2025). “§ 402 (b)(1); see also 5 U.S.C. § 404 (establishing the duties of the Inspector General).”

Leopold v. Manger (D.D.C. 2026). “§ 1909 did not require the disclosure of the OIG’s semiannual reports and, in fact, the Inspector General Act, 5 U.S.C. § 404 (e)(2) “forbade the Inspector General from publishing the audits and reports that Mr.”

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.