5 U.S.C. § 5112
General authority of the Office of Personnel Management
Historical and Revision Notes | ||
|---|---|---|
Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| ||
In subsection (a), the words “which may be exercised at any time in its discretion” are omitted as redundant. The words “is binding on all administrative, certifying, payroll, disbursing, and accounting officials” are substituted for “shall be binding on all administrative, certifying, payroll, disbursing, and accounting officers of the Government” to preserve the application to members of the uniformed services.
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, § 906(a)(17), substituted “Office of Personnel Management” for “Civil Service Commission” in section catchline.
Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 95–454, § 906(a)(2), (3), substituted “Office of Personnel Management” and “Office” for “Civil Service Commission” and “Commission”, respectively, wherever appearing.
Amendment by Pub. L. 95–454 effective 90 days after
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases, 1967–2020 · leading case: United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976).
United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976). “5 U. S. C. § 5112 (b). And respondents, as has been- noted, did just that.”
Milo Burroughs v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 764 F.2d 1300 (9th Cir. 1985). “It does not apply to employees’ requests for job reclassifications, which are provided for under 5 U.S.C. § 5112 . 1 The legislative history of the CSRA shows that it was directed at streamlining and reforming performance appraisals and disciplinary actions.”
Douglas v. Norton, 167 F. App'x 698 (10th Cir. 2006). “5 U.S.C. § 5112 (a)(3), (4), (b); 5 C.F.R.”
Perdeaux v. United States, 33 F. Supp. 2d 187 (E.D.N.Y 1999). “Defendants argue that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims because they have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies under 5 U.S.C. § 5112 . Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 5112 (a), the OPM is authorized to: (1) “ascertain currently the facts as…”
William S. Barnhart v. Donald Devine, Dir., Opm, 771 F.2d 1515 (D.C. Cir. 1985). “13, 1978 (amending 5 U.S.C. § 5112 ). It appears that Congress merely intended to substitute either “OPM” or “MSPB” wherever “CSC” appeared in a statute, whichever appeared most appropriate, without reconsidering individually each and every statute impacting on the civil service…”
Paul Hinkel Donald Reynolds v. Gordon England, Sec'y, United States Navy, 349 F.3d 162 (3rd Cir. 2003). “” 5 U.S.C. § 5112 (a). The OPM is statutorily required to entertain an employee’s appeal of his classification.”
Bookman v. United States, 197 Ct. Cl. 108 (Ct. Cl. 1972). “5 U.S.C. § 5112 (1970) specifically authorizes the Commission to: (1) ascertain currently the facts as to the duties, responsibilities, and qualification requirements of a position; (2) place in an appropriate class and grade a newly created position or a position coming…”
Luetzow v. Dir., Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 562 F. Supp. 684 (D.D.C. 1983). “Moreover, OPM remains free to reclassify the plaintiff in accordance with its procedures for review under 5 U.S.C. § 5112 (a). Plaintiff is in the same position he had at the outset.”
Kavazanjian v. U. S. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 399 F. Supp. 339 (S.D.N.Y. 1975). “5 U.S.C. § 5112 (a) (1, 3 & 4). Upon request of an affected employee, the CSC must exercise its authority.”
Wilmot v. United States, 205 Ct. Cl. 666 (Ct. Cl. 1974). “5 U.S.C. § 5112 (1970) specifically authorizes the Commission to: (1) ascertain currently the facts as to the duties, responsibilities, and qualification requirements of a position; (2) place in an appropriate class and grade a newly created position or a position coming…”
Atwell v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 670 F.2d 272 (D.C. Cir. 1981). “5 U.S.C. § 5112 (b) (1976) (amended 1978); Federal Personnel Manual Chapter 511, Subchapter 6.”
Friedman, 214 Ct. Cl. 804 (Ct. Cl. 1977). “United States, supra; 5 U.S.C. § 5112 (1970). Plaintiffs have not proved that NAVPRO, in the RIF and recall actions that it took, ran counter to statutes or regulations, abused its discretion, or otherwise acted in a manner arbitrary or capricious so as to require this court to…”
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.