5 U.S.C. § 4304
Responsibilities of the Office of Personnel Management
Historical and Revision Notes | ||
|---|---|---|
Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| ||
In subsection (a)(1), the words “corresponding to an efficiency rating of ‘good’ under the Veterans’ Preference Act of 1944, as amended, and under laws superseded by this chapter” in clause (1) of former section 2005 are omitted, but are carried into section 3502.
Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.
1978—Pub. L. 95–454 substituted “Responsibilities of the Office of Personnel Management” for “Ratings for performance” in section catchline and in text substituted provisions relating to the responsibilities of the Office of Personnel Management under this subchapter, for provisions relating to ratings for performance.
Amendment by Pub. L. 95–454 effective 90 days after
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2022 · leading case: Samuel R. President v. Cyrus R. Vance, Sec'y, United States Dep't of State, 627 F.2d 353 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
Samuel R. President v. Cyrus R. Vance, Sec'y, United States Dep't of State, 627 F.2d 353 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “Agencies were required to supply performance ratings in at least three Categories; satisfactory, unsatisfactory, and outstanding, 5 U.S.C. § 4304 (a) (1976), and “[a] performance rating of unsatisfactory [was] a basis for removal from the position in which the performance was…”
Cynthia A. Guillebeau v. Dep't of the Navy, 362 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “As part of the Navy demonstration project, OPM waived a number of statutory and regulatory provisions, for example, the requirement that OPM separately review and approve the agency’s performance appraisal system, 5 U.S.C. § 4304 (b)(1) (2000). Science and Technology Reinvention…”
Albert J. Lovshin v. Dep't of the Navy, 767 F.2d 826 (Fed. Cir. 1985). “” 5 U.S.C. § 4304 (b) (1976). Before rating an employee “unsatisfactory,” an agency was required to give the employee 90 days warning and a reasonable opportunity to improve.”
Nat'l Treasury Employees Union v. Devine, 577 F. Supp. 738 (D.D.C. 1983). “OPM is required to “make technical assistance available to agencies in the development of performance appraisal systems,” 5 U.S.C. § 4304 (a). Performance appraisal is an area governed by the new regulations.”
Salmon v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 663 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “See 5 U.S.C. § 4304 (b)(1) (2006) (requiring such approval for “each perform *1384 anee appraisal system developed by any agency”).”
Schaefer v. United States, 224 Ct. Cl. 541 (Ct. Cl. 1980). “(1976); specifically, 5 U.S.C. § 4304 (b). In insisting Labor’s action was incorrect because of its failure to first rate his work "unsatisfactory,” plaintiff is therefore contending that to effect a separation under 5 U.”
Wilson C. Schramm v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., Intervenor, 682 F.2d 85 (3rd Cir. 1982). “§ 4302 and approved by the Office of Personnel Management under 5 U.S.C. § 4304 . If the agency has no appraisal system in operation at the time of a demotion or removal, according to the MSPB in Wells , the agency must justify its action under the preponderance of the evidence…”
Florence L. Smith v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 813 F.2d 1216 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “However, 5 U.S.C. § 4304 (b)(1) requires the OPM to review all performance appraisal systems developed by agencies to determine compliance with chapter 43 of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.”
Mobin v. United States, 22 Cl. Ct. 331 (Ct. Cl. 1991). “§ 706 (2)(A); (6) Chapter 43 of the Civil Service Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. § 4304 ; and (7) the fifth amendment to the Constitution (due process and takings clauses).”
King v. Hampton, 412 F. Supp. 827 (E.D. Va. 1976). “The procedure for performance rating is governed by statute. 5 U.S.C. § 4301 , et seq.”
Hatcher v. Dep't of Air Force, 705 F.2d 1309 (11th Cir. 1983). “' In 1978, as part of a comprehensive reform of the civil service, 5 U.S.C. § 4304 was amended to provide for removals for “unacceptable performance” and to establish specific procedures to be followed in such removal actions.”
Bartholomew Mandel v. Joseph O. Nouse & Joseph E. Pieklik, Harry Thomas v. Joseph O. Nouse, Harry Thomas v. Howard Callaway, Sec'y of the Army, 509 F.2d 1031 (6th Cir. 1975). “5 U.S.C. § 4304 reads in part: (a) Each performance-rating plan shall provide for ratings representing at least— (1) satisfactory performance; (2) unsatisfactory performance; and (3) outstanding performance.”
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.