5 U.S.C. § 5942

Allowance based on duty at remote worksites

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Notwithstanding section 5536 of this title, an employee of an Executive department or an independent establishment who is assigned to duty, except temporary duty, at a site so remote from the nearest established communities or suitable places of residence as to require an appreciable degree of expense, hardship, and inconvenience, beyond that normally encountered in metropolitan commuting, on the part of the employee in commuting to and from his residence and such worksite, is entitled, in addition to pay otherwise due him, to an allowance of not to exceed $10 a day. The allowance shall be paid under regulations prescribed by the President establishing the rates at which the allowance will be paid and defining and designating those sites, areas, and groups of positions to which the rates apply.(b) Under procedures prescribed by the President, the maximum allowance specified in subsection (a) may be adjusted from time to time in the interest of recruiting and retaining employees for performance of duty at remote worksites.(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 513; Pub. L. 90–83, § 1(41), Sept. 11, 1967, 81 Stat. 207; Pub. L. 91–656, § 6(a), Jan. 8, 1971, 84 Stat. 1953; Pub. L. 101–510, div. A, title XII, § 1206(g), Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1662.)

Historical and Revision Notes

1966 Act

Derivation

U.S. Code

Revised Statutes and

Statutes at Large

 

5 U.S.C. 70c.

Aug. 31, 1964, Pub. L. 88–538, § 1, 78 Stat. 745.

The words “of the United States” are omitted as unnecessary because of the definition of “employee” in section 2105.

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

1967 Act

Section of title 5

Source (U.S. Code)

Source (Statutes at Large)

5942

5 App.: 70c.

Mar. 31, 1966, Pub. L. 89–383, § 1, 80 Stat. 98.

Editorial NotesAmendments

1990—Pub. L. 101–510 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).

1971—Pub. L. 91–656 substituted “duty at remote worksites” for “duty on California offshore islands or at Nevada Test Site” in section catchline and assignment to duty “at a site so remote from the nearest established communities or suitable places of residence as to require an appreciable degree of expense, hardship, and inconvenience, beyond that normally encountered in metropolitan commuting, on the part of the employee in commuting to and from his residence and such worksite” for assignment to duty “on one of the California offshore islands or at the United States Atomic Energy Commission Nevada Test Site, including the Nuclear Rocket Development Station”, inserted reference to employee “of an Executive department or an independent establishment” and provision for designation by regulation of sites to which the rates apply.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1971 Amendment

Pub. L. 91–656, § 6(b), Jan. 8, 1971, 84 Stat. 1954, provided that: “Notwithstanding section 5536 of title 5, United States Code, and the amendment made by subsection (a) of this section [amending this section], and until the effective date of regulations prescribed by the President under such amendment—“(1) allowances may be paid to employees under section 5942 of title 5, United States Code, and the regulations prescribed by the President under such section, as in effect immediately prior to the effective date of this section [Jan. 8, 1971]; and“(2) such regulations may be amended or revoked in accordance with such section 5942 as in effect immediately prior to the effective date of this section [Jan. 8, 1971].”

Increase in Allowance Based on Duty at Remote Worksites

Pub. L. 117–81, div. A, title XI, § 1116, Dec. 27, 2021, 135 Stat. 1955, provided that:“(a)Assessment and Rate.—Not later than March 31, 2022, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall complete an assessment of the remote site pay allowance under section 5942 of title 5, United States Code, and propose a new rate of such allowance, adjusted for inflation, and submit such assessment and rate to the President and to Congress.“(b)Application.—Beginning on the first day of the first pay period beginning after the date the Director submits the assessment and rate under subsection (a), such rate shall, notwithstanding subsection (a) of such section 5942, be the rate of such allowance.”

Executive DocumentsDelegation of Functions

Authority of President under this section to prescribe regulations establishing rates at which an allowance based on duty (except temporary duty) at remote worksites will be paid and defining and designating sites, areas, and groups of positions to which rates apply delegated to Office of Personnel Management, see section 8(3) of Ex. Ord. No. 11609, July 22, 1971, 36 F.R. 13747, set out as a note under section 301 of Title 3, The President.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 2003–2019 · leading case: Agwiak v. United States
Agwiak v. United States (2005) uscfc · cites it 13× “Plaintiffs were subsequently granted leave to amend their complaint to include an alternative claim for remote worksite pay pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 5942 (a). Id. The amended complaint was filed with the COFC on March 7, 2000.”
Agee v. United States (2007) uscfc · cites it 3× “The Government has designated San Clemente Island as a “Remote Worksite” under 5 U.S.C. § 5942 (a) because it is distant from established communities or suitable places of residence.”
Samish Indian Nation v. United States (2009) uscfc · cites it 2× “The statute provided: [A]n employee of an Executive department or an independent establishment who is assigned to duty, except temporary duty, at a site so remote from the nearest established communities or suitable places of residence as to require an appreciable degree of…”
Samish Indian Nation v. United States (2011) cafc “3d at 1378 -79 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 5942 (a) (2000) (emphases different than original)).”
Wolfchild v. United States (2011) uscfc “2003) ( 5 U.S.C. § 5942 (a) was money-mandating where it provided that employees were “entitled” to certain pay and such funds “shall be paid under regulations prescribed by the President”), with Perri, 340 F.”
Agwiak v. States (2003) cafc · cites it 9× “On March 7, 2000, the plaintiffs, with leave of the Court of Federal Claims, amended their complaint to include an alternative claim for remote worksite pay pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 5942 (a). On April 27, 2000, the plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment with respect to…”
U.S. Home Corp. v. United States (2010) uscfc “2003) (ruling that a remote duty pay allowance statute was money-mandating because it contained language such as “ ‘is entitled’” and “‘shall be paid’” (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 5942 (a) (2006))); Khan v. United States, 201 F.”
Collins v. United States (2011) uscfc · cites it 2× “2003), the Federal Circuit faced the issue whether 5 U.S.C. § 5942 (a), a statute providing for remote-duty pay, was a money-mandating statute.”
San Antonio Housing Authority v. United States (2019) uscfc · cites it 3× “United States, the Federal Circuit found that 5 U.S.C. § 5942 (a) (2000), the statute under which the appellant sought recovery, was money- mandating.”
Samish Indian Nation v. United States (2011) cafc “3d at 1378 -79 (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 5942 (a) (2000) (emphases different than original)).”
Maine Community Health Options v. United States (2019) uscfc “, 5 U.S.C. § 5942 (2012) (governing federal employees’ entitlement to a remote duty allowance); 37 U.”
Community Health Choice, Inc. v. United States (2019) uscfc “, 5 U.S.C. § 5942 (2012) (governing federal employees’ entitlement to a remote duty allowance); 37 U.”
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.