5 U.S.C. § 5110

Review of classification of positions

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

(a) The Office of Personnel Management, from time to time, shall review such number of positions in each agency as will enable the Office to determine whether the agency is placing positions in classes and grades in conformance with or consistently with published standards.(b) When the Office finds under subsection (a) of this section that a position is not placed in its proper class and grade in conformance with published standards or that a position for which there is no published standard is not placed in the class and grade consistently with published standards, it shall, after consultation with appropriate officials of the agency concerned, place the position in its appropriate class and grade and shall certify this action to the agency. The agency shall act in accordance with the certificate, and the certificate is binding on all administrative, certifying, payroll, disbursing, and accounting officials.(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 455; Pub. L. 95–454, title IX, § 906(a)(2), (3), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1224.)

Historical and Revision Notes
(a)	5 U.S.C. 1102(b).	Oct. 28, 1949, ch. 782, § 502(b), 63 Stat. 958.
(b)	5 U.S.C. 1103.	Oct. 28, 1949, ch. 782, § 503, 63 Stat. 958.

Historical and Revision Notes

(a)

5 U.S.C. 1102(b).

Oct. 28, 1949, ch. 782, § 502(b), 63 Stat. 958.

(b)

5 U.S.C. 1103.

Oct. 28, 1949, ch. 782, § 503, 63 Stat. 958.

In subsection (b), the words “to which this chapter applies” are omitted as unnecessary in view of section 5102. The words “appropriate officials” and “administrative, certifying, payroll, disbursing, and accounting officials” are substituted for “appropriate officers and employees” and “administrative, certifying, payroll, disbursing, and accounting officers”, respectively, to preserve the application to members of the uniformed services who are excluded from the definition of “officer” and “employee”.

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.

Editorial NotesAmendments

1978—Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 95–454 substituted “Office of Personnel Management” and “Office” for “Civil Service Commission” and “Commission”, respectively.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 95–454 effective 90 days after Oct. 13, 1978, see section 907 of Pub. L. 95–454, set out as a note under section 1101 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1976–2014 · leading case: United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976). “Among the Act’s provisions along this line are those requiring the Civil Service Commission to engage in supervisory review of an agency’s classifications, and, where necessary, to review and reclassify individual positions, 5 U. S. C. §5110 ; allowing the Commission to…”

William S. Barnhart v. Donald Devine, Dir., Opm, 771 F.2d 1515 (D.C. Cir. 1985). · cites it 4× “§ 5105 (1982), and to review agency compliance with those standards, 5 U.S.C. § 5110 (a) (1982). Under the classification system as originally conceived, each agency was responsible for applying the general classification standards in classifying its own employees.”

Seymour A. Kleiman v. Dep't of Energy, 956 F.2d 335 (D.C. Cir. 1992). “5 U.S.C. § 5110 . An agency may re-classify a classified position “[wjhen facts warrant,” 5 U.”

Martin Pierce v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 242 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “If Pierce wished to pursue his contention that his prior position was improperly classified, he should have sought relief from the Office of Personnel Management pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 5110 and 5112. See Bosco v. United States, 931 F.”

Grumbine v. United States, 586 F. Supp. 1144 (D.D.C. 1984). “Even if Congress might have expected the term "establishment” to be narrowly construed when the Equal Pay Act was initially applied to private employers, that understanding does not carry over to the proper construction of that term in the subsequently-included sphere of federal…”

Atwell v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 670 F.2d 272 (D.C. Cir. 1981). “-, 5 U.S.C. §§ 5110 , 5112 (Supp. Ill 1979).”

Proposed Settlement of Diamond v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. (OLC 1998). · cites it 2× “” 5 U.S.C. §5110 (a) (1994). If, during the review pursu ant to § 5 1 10(a), OPM finds that an agency has failed to place a position in its proper grade and class, the statute directs OPM to place the position in the appro priate grade and class.”

Johnson v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 431 F. App'x 915 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “Although 5 U.S.C. §§ 5110 and 5112 authorize OPM to review position classifications, the Board has no authority to hear appeals of such reviews.”

Lorraine C. Cambric-Gumbs v. Dep't of the Air Force (MSPB 2014). “As the administrative judge correctly found, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 5110 and 5112, the appellant should have raised with the Office of Personnel Management her disagreement with the classification of her position as GS-07.”

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.