5 U.S.C. § 5107
Classification of positions
Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, each agency shall place each position under its jurisdiction in its appropriate class and grade in conformance with standards published by the Office of Personnel Management or, if no published standards apply directly, consistently with published standards. When facts warrant, an agency may change a position which it has placed in a class or grade under this section from that class or grade to another class or grade. Subject to subchapter VI of chapter 53 of this title, these actions of an agency are the basis for pay and personnel transactions until changed by certificate of the Office.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1970–2021 · leading case: Seymour A. Kleiman v. Dep't of Energy, 956 F.2d 335 (D.C. Cir. 1992).
Seymour A. Kleiman v. Dep't of Energy, 956 F.2d 335 (D.C. Cir. 1992). “5 U.S.C. § 5107 . This consists of assigning each position a class.”
Douglas v. Norton, 167 F. App'x 698 (10th Cir. 2006). “5 U.S.C. § 5107 . An employee wishing to challenge his classification may request the Office of Personnel Management to decide whether a position is appropriately classified and if not, to re-classify it.”
Perdeaux v. United States, 205 F. Supp. 2d 58 (E.D.N.Y 2002). “§ 5107 provides that “each agency shall place each position under its jurisdiction in its appropriate class and grade in conformance with standards published by the Office of Personnel Management. ... When facts warrant, an agency may change a position which it has placed in a…”
William S. Barnhart v. Donald Devine, Dir., Opm, 771 F.2d 1515 (D.C. Cir. 1985). “See 5 U.S.C. §§ 5107 , 5112 (1982). 14 . Appellants rely upon this court’s decision in Atwell v.”
Thomas L. Harris v. R.I. Brownlee, Acting Sec'y, United States Dep't of the Army, 477 F.3d 1043 (8th Cir. 2007). “The Corps is required by law to assign Harris’ class and grade “in conformance with standards published by the Office of Personnel Management,” 5 U.S.C. § 5107 , and the independent classifier determined that Harris was appropriately placed at the GS-12 level after performing a…”
Clifton L. Goodrich v. U. S. Dep't of the Navy & Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 686 F.2d 169 (3rd Cir. 1982). “5 U.S.C. § 5107 . Where a position is lowered in grade through no fault of an employee, however, the Act permits the employee to retain the higher grade for a two year period for the purpose of determining compensation and fringe benefits.”
Atwell v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 670 F.2d 272 (D.C. Cir. 1981). “5 U.S.C. § 5107 (Supp. Ill 1979). In performing this reclassification, federal agencies are directed to apply certain objective criteria in an attempt to provide uniform standards applicable across agency lines.”
Milo Burroughs v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 764 F.2d 1300 (9th Cir. 1985). “5 U.S.C. § 5107 . Section 5112 grants OPM general authority to decide whether positions are appropriately classified and authorizes classification appeals by affected employees or agencies to OPM.”
Paul Hinkel Donald Reynolds v. Gordon England, Sec'y, United States Navy, 349 F.3d 162 (3rd Cir. 2003). “5 U.S.C. § 5107 . An employee who wishes to challenge the appropriateness of his position’s classification may appeal to the OPM, which is authorized to, inter alia, (1) “decide whether a position is in its appropriate class and grade”; and (2) “change a position from one class…”
Paralyzed Vets. of Am. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 345 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “This is located under the effective date listed after 5 U.S.C. § 5107 .”
Charles Albert v. The United States, 437 F.2d 976 (Ct. Cl. 1971). “ific charges are that the headquarters’ representatives who interviewed the affected employees, and performed desk audits of their jobs, did not spend enough time and were perfunctory ; that some of the Center’s employees had not been told in advance of the purpose of these…”
Joseph T. Watkins, on Behalf of Himself & Others Similarly Situated v. Walter E. Washington, Mayor for the Dist. of Columbia, 511 F.2d 404 (D.C. Cir. 1975). “Watkins argues that even if no positions higher than the GS — 11 position he refused were vacant at the time he brought his motion for enforcement, positions could have been made available by reclassification under 5 U.S.C. § 5107 , by an ad hoc adjustment of pay and other…”
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.