5 U.S.C. § 5333
Minimum rate for new appointments
New appointments shall be made at the minimum rate of the appropriate grade. However, under regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management which provide for such considerations as the existing pay or unusually high or unique qualifications of the candidate, or a special need of the Government for his services, the head of an agency may appoint, with the approval of the Office in each specific case, an individual to a position at such a rate above the minimum rate of the appropriate grade as the Office may authorize for this purpose. The approval of the Office in each specific case is not required with respect to an appointment made by the Librarian of Congress.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1982–2024 · leading case: Ah Sam v. United States, 230 Ct. Cl. 596 (Ct. Cl. 1982).
Ah Sam v. United States, 230 Ct. Cl. 596 (Ct. Cl. 1982). “There being no factual dispute, the court is asked to determine whether prevailing rate wage employees who were promoted to General Schedule supervisory positions before June 26, 1974, are entitled to a further increase in wages under 5 U.S.C. §§ 5333 and/or 5334 and their…”
Donald D. Huston v. The United States, 956 F.2d 259 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “Whereupon, he filed suit in the Claims Court asserting a right to a pay adjustment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 5333 (b) (1988), which provides that General Schedule employees may be paid at the highest rate permitted by their grade if they regularly supervise prevailing-rate…”
John McBryde v. United States, 299 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “1992), in which we held that the Court of Federal Claims did not have jurisdiction over a claim for a pay increase under 5 U.S.C. § 5333 (b). In Huston , the statute provided that “an employee .”
Boyer v. United States, 97 F.4th 834 (Fed. Cir. 2024). “In reaching this conclusion, the court relied on a pay-setting statute, 5 U.S.C. § 5333 , which allows prior pay to be considered in hiring.”
Hopi Tribe v. United States, 55 Fed. Cl. 81 (Fed. Cl. 2002). “1992) (holding the use of “may” in 5 U.S.C. § 5333 (b) is not money-mandating); Hoch v.”
Collins v. United States, 101 Fed. Cl. 435 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “The statute at issue provided, “[u]nder regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, an employee in a position to which this subehapter applies ... may be paid at one of the rates for his grade which is above the highest rate of basic pay being paid to any such…”
Deshauteurs v. United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 263 (Fed. Cl. 1997). “1992), the court concluded that due to its discretionary language 5 U.S.C. § 5333 (b) (governing the pay of General Schedule employees) was not money-mandating.”
Int'l Org. of Masters, Mates & Pilots v. Honorable Harold Brown, Sec'y of Def., 698 F.2d 536 (D.C. Cir. 1983). “” 5 U.S.C. § 5333 (b) (emphasis added). Similarly, id.”
Deggins v. United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 617 (Fed. Cl. 1997). “United States, the Federal Circuit held that 5 U.S.C. § 5333 (b) (1988) was not money mandating and that the U.”
Mendoza v. United States, 87 Fed. Cl. 331 (Fed. Cl. 2009). “” 5 U.S.C. § 5333 . This provision satisfies the money-mandating requirement “because once a condition is met, .”
North v. United States, 123 Fed. Cl. 457 (Fed. Cl. 2015). “The governing statute is 5 U.S.C. § 5333 (2012); this statute, which addresses GS pay rates and the “Minimum rate for new appointments,” states in relevant part: New appointments shall be made at the minimum rate of the appropriate grade.”
Teninty v. Geren, 776 F. Supp. 2d 725 (N.D. Ill. 2011). “Under the applicable Office of Professional Management (“OPM”) regulations, the Army is authorized to set a new employee’s rate of basic pay above the minimum rate if it determines that the employee has superior qualifications.”
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.