Notes of Decisions
Cited in
36
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 1996–2024 · leading case:
Buckley v. United States, 57 Fed. Cl. 328 (Fed. Cl. 2003).
Buckley v. United States, 57 Fed. Cl. 328 (Fed. Cl. 2003).
· cites it 11× “§ 5545 (c)(2), and availability pay, as provided by 5 U.S.C. § 5545a. The plaintiffs argue that under the applicable law they are LEOs, entitled to receive the same compensation as other DEA LEOs, including Special Agents, based on the actual work performed by them during the…”
Crowley v. United States, 53 Fed. Cl. 737 (Fed. Cl. 2002).
· cites it 11× “§ 5545 (c)(2), and availability pay, as provided by 5 U.S.C. § 5545a. The plaintiffs argue that under the applicable law they are Law Enforcement Officers, entitled to receive the same compensation as other DEA Law Enforcement Officers, including Special Agents, based on the…”
Horvath v. United States, 130 Fed. Cl. 273 (Fed. Cl. 2017).
· cites it 10× “§ 5542 (the “Overtime Pay Statute”) and 5 U.S.C. § 5545a (the “LEAP” Statute). Id.”
Vanderpool v. United States, 84 Fed. Cl. 66 (Fed. Cl. 2008).
· cites it 25× “In response to the plaintiffs’ complaint, the government filed a partial motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). The government contends that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’…”
Floyd v. Dist. of Columbia, 129 F.3d 152 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
· cites it 3× “2425 (1994) (codified at 5 U.S.C. § 5545a (1994 & Supp.1996)). LEAP increased the work day of federal criminal investigators by two hours and awarded all investigators “availability pay” at the rate of 25 percent of their basic pay, thereby eliminating so-called…”
Caven v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 392 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
· cites it 4× “Shortly thereafter, the Department informed its employees that criminal investigators in Caven’s classification were not entitled to “availability pay” because they did not meet the eligibility criteria for law enforcement officer status.”
Nigg v. United States Postal Serv., 555 F.3d 781 (9th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 3× “The Law Enforcement Availability Pay Act (“LEAP”) — 1994 In 1994, Congress enacted LEAP, codified at 5 U.S.C. § 5545a, amending FLE-PA and ending administratively uncontrollable overtime for most federal law enforcement agents, though some federal agents still receive AUO pay.”
Buckley v. United States, 51 Fed. Cl. 174 (Fed. Cl. 2001).
· cites it 11× “§ 5545 (c)(2), and availability pay, as provided by 5 U.S.C. § 5545a. The plaintiffs argue that under the applicable law they are LEOs, entitled to receive the same compensation as other DEA LEOs, including Special Agents, based on the actual work performed by them during the…”
Bradley v. United States, 42 Fed. Cl. 333 (Fed. Cl. 1998).
· cites it 7× “At a recorded status conference conducted on June 6, 1996, there was a consensus that plaintiffs are entitled to availability pay pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 5545a beginning as of October 30, 1994 (rather than October 1, 1994 as alleged in the complaint).”
Fed. Air Marshals(Fam) Fam 1 v. United States, 84 Fed. Cl. 585 (Fed. Cl. 2008).
· cites it 4× “§ 8331 (3)(E)(ii), which provides that, for purposes of retirement benefits, basic pay of FAMs includes Availability Pay, subject to the restrictions and earning limitations imposed on criminal investigators under 5 U.S.C. § 5545a (2008). Moreover, because criminal investigators…”
— 5 U.S.C. § 5545a(a) — 2 cases
— 5 U.S.C. § 5545a(a)(2) — 6 cases
Buckley v. United States, 57 Fed. Cl. 328 (Fed. Cl. 2003).
“§ 5545 (c)(2), and availability pay, as provided by 5 U.S.C. § 5545a. The plaintiffs argue that under the applicable law they are LEOs, entitled to receive the same compensation as other DEA LEOs, including Special Agents, based on the actual work performed by them during the…”
Crowley v. United States, 53 Fed. Cl. 737 (Fed. Cl. 2002).
“§ 5545 (c)(2), and availability pay, as provided by 5 U.S.C. § 5545a. The plaintiffs argue that under the applicable law they are Law Enforcement Officers, entitled to receive the same compensation as other DEA Law Enforcement Officers, including Special Agents, based on the…”
Caven v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 392 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
“Shortly thereafter, the Department informed its employees that criminal investigators in Caven’s classification were not entitled to “availability pay” because they did not meet the eligibility criteria for law enforcement officer status.”
Buckley v. United States, 51 Fed. Cl. 174 (Fed. Cl. 2001).
“§ 5545 (c)(2), and availability pay, as provided by 5 U.S.C. § 5545a. The plaintiffs argue that under the applicable law they are LEOs, entitled to receive the same compensation as other DEA LEOs, including Special Agents, based on the actual work performed by them during the…”
Vanderpool v. United States, 84 Fed. Cl. 66 (Fed. Cl. 2008).
“In response to the plaintiffs’ complaint, the government filed a partial motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). The government contends that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’…”
— 5 U.S.C. § 5545a(a)(2)(A) — 1 case
— 5 U.S.C. § 5545a(b) — 10 cases
Horvath v. United States, 130 Fed. Cl. 273 (Fed. Cl. 2017).
“§ 5542 (the “Overtime Pay Statute”) and 5 U.S.C. § 5545a (the “LEAP” Statute). Id.”
Caven v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 392 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
“Shortly thereafter, the Department informed its employees that criminal investigators in Caven’s classification were not entitled to “availability pay” because they did not meet the eligibility criteria for law enforcement officer status.”
Vanderpool v. United States, 84 Fed. Cl. 66 (Fed. Cl. 2008).
“In response to the plaintiffs’ complaint, the government filed a partial motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). The government contends that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’…”
— 5 U.S.C. § 5545a(c) — 7 cases
Floyd v. Dist. of Columbia, 129 F.3d 152 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
“2425 (1994) (codified at 5 U.S.C. § 5545a (1994 & Supp.1996)). LEAP increased the work day of federal criminal investigators by two hours and awarded all investigators “availability pay” at the rate of 25 percent of their basic pay, thereby eliminating so-called…”
Bradley v. United States, 42 Fed. Cl. 333 (Fed. Cl. 1998).
“At a recorded status conference conducted on June 6, 1996, there was a consensus that plaintiffs are entitled to availability pay pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 5545a beginning as of October 30, 1994 (rather than October 1, 1994 as alleged in the complaint).”
Horvath v. United States, 130 Fed. Cl. 273 (Fed. Cl. 2017).
“§ 5542 (the “Overtime Pay Statute”) and 5 U.S.C. § 5545a (the “LEAP” Statute). Id.”
Vanderpool v. United States, 84 Fed. Cl. 66 (Fed. Cl. 2008).
“In response to the plaintiffs’ complaint, the government filed a partial motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). The government contends that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’…”
— 5 U.S.C. § 5545a(d) — 7 cases
Caven v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 392 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
“Shortly thereafter, the Department informed its employees that criminal investigators in Caven’s classification were not entitled to “availability pay” because they did not meet the eligibility criteria for law enforcement officer status.”
Horvath v. United States, 130 Fed. Cl. 273 (Fed. Cl. 2017).
“§ 5542 (the “Overtime Pay Statute”) and 5 U.S.C. § 5545a (the “LEAP” Statute). Id.”
Bradley v. United States, 42 Fed. Cl. 333 (Fed. Cl. 1998).
“At a recorded status conference conducted on June 6, 1996, there was a consensus that plaintiffs are entitled to availability pay pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 5545a beginning as of October 30, 1994 (rather than October 1, 1994 as alleged in the complaint).”
— 5 U.S.C. § 5545a(d)(1) — 2 cases
— 5 U.S.C. § 5545a(d)(2) — 2 cases
— 5 U.S.C. § 5545a(d)(l) — 4 cases
Nigg v. United States Postal Serv., 555 F.3d 781 (9th Cir. 2009).
“The Law Enforcement Availability Pay Act (“LEAP”) — 1994 In 1994, Congress enacted LEAP, codified at 5 U.S.C. § 5545a, amending FLE-PA and ending administratively uncontrollable overtime for most federal law enforcement agents, though some federal agents still receive AUO pay.”
Vanderpool v. United States, 84 Fed. Cl. 66 (Fed. Cl. 2008).
“In response to the plaintiffs’ complaint, the government filed a partial motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). The government contends that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’…”
— 5 U.S.C. § 5545a(e)(2) — 5 cases
Vanderpool v. United States, 84 Fed. Cl. 66 (Fed. Cl. 2008).
“In response to the plaintiffs’ complaint, the government filed a partial motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). The government contends that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’…”
Bradley v. United States, 42 Fed. Cl. 333 (Fed. Cl. 1998).
“At a recorded status conference conducted on June 6, 1996, there was a consensus that plaintiffs are entitled to availability pay pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 5545a beginning as of October 30, 1994 (rather than October 1, 1994 as alleged in the complaint).”
— 5 U.S.C. § 5545a(e)(l) — 2 cases
Vanderpool v. United States, 84 Fed. Cl. 66 (Fed. Cl. 2008).
“In response to the plaintiffs’ complaint, the government filed a partial motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC). The government contends that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’…”
— 5 U.S.C. § 5545a(f)(1)(A) — 2 cases
— 5 U.S.C. § 5545a(f)(l)(B) — 1 case
— 5 U.S.C. § 5545a(g) — 1 case
— 5 U.S.C. § 5545a(h) — 8 cases
Nigg v. United States Postal Serv., 555 F.3d 781 (9th Cir. 2009).
“The Law Enforcement Availability Pay Act (“LEAP”) — 1994 In 1994, Congress enacted LEAP, codified at 5 U.S.C. § 5545a, amending FLE-PA and ending administratively uncontrollable overtime for most federal law enforcement agents, though some federal agents still receive AUO pay.”
— 5 U.S.C. § 5545a(h)(1) — 2 cases
— 5 U.S.C. § 5545a(h)(2)(B) — 2 cases
Floyd v. Dist. of Columbia, 129 F.3d 152 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
“2425 (1994) (codified at 5 U.S.C. § 5545a (1994 & Supp.1996)). LEAP increased the work day of federal criminal investigators by two hours and awarded all investigators “availability pay” at the rate of 25 percent of their basic pay, thereby eliminating so-called…”
— 5 U.S.C. § 5545a(h)(l) — 1 case
— 5 U.S.C. § 5545a(i) — 1 case
Fed. Air Marshals(Fam) Fam 1 v. United States, 84 Fed. Cl. 585 (Fed. Cl. 2008).
“§ 8331 (3)(E)(ii), which provides that, for purposes of retirement benefits, basic pay of FAMs includes Availability Pay, subject to the restrictions and earning limitations imposed on criminal investigators under 5 U.S.C. § 5545a (2008). Moreover, because criminal investigators…”
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.