U.S. Code » Title 5 » Part PART III— EMPLOYEES › Subpart Subpart E— Attendance and Leave › Chapter CHAPTER 63— LEAVE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— OTHER PAID LEAVE

5 U.S.C. § 6324

Absence of certain police and firemen

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Sick leave may not be charged to the account of a member of the Metropolitan Police force or the Fire Department of the District of Columbia, the United States Park Police force, or the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division for an absence due to injury or illness resulting from the performance of duty.(b) The determination of whether an injury or illness resulted from the performance of duty shall be made under regulations prescribed by—(1) the District of Columbia Council for members of the Metropolitan Police force and the Fire Department of the District of Columbia;(2) the Secretary of the Interior for the United States Park Police force; and(3) the Secretary of Homeland Security for the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division.(c) This section shall not apply to members of the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division who are covered under chapter 84 for the purpose of retirement benefits.(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 522; Pub. L. 90–623, § 1(18), Oct. 22, 1968, 82 Stat. 1313; Pub. L. 94–183, § 2(28), (29), Dec. 31, 1975, 89 Stat. 1058; Pub. L. 111–282, § 2(c), Oct. 15, 2010, 124 Stat. 3038.)

Historical and Revision Notes

Derivation

U.S. Code

Revised Statutes and

Statutes at Large

 

5 U.S.C. 2071.

Aug. 21, 1964, Pub. L. 88–471, § 5, 78 Stat. 583.

The word “officer” is omitted as covered by “member”.

In subsection (b), the words “injury or illness” are substituted for “injury or disease” to conform to subsection (a).

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

2010—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 111–282, § 2(c)(1), substituted “United States Secret Service Uniformed Division” for “Executive Protective Service force”.

Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 111–282, § 2(c)(2), substituted “Homeland Security for the United States Secret Service Uniformed Division” for “the Treasury for the Executive Protective Service force”.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 111–282, § 2(c)(3), added subsec. (c).

1975—Subsecs. (a), (b)(3). Pub. L. 94–183 substituted “Executive Protective Service” for “White House Police”.

1968—Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 90–623 substituted “District of Columbia Council” for “Commissioners of the District of Columbia”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2010 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–282 effective on first day of first pay period which begins after Oct. 15, 2010, see section 5 of Pub. L. 111–282, set out as a note under section 5102 of this title.

Effective Date of 1968 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 90–623 intended to restate without substantive change the law in effect on Oct. 22, 1968, see section 6 of Pub. L. 90–623, set out as a note under section 5334 of this title.

Transfer of Functions

District of Columbia Council, as established by Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1967, abolished as of noon Jan. 2, 1975, by Pub. L. 93–198, title VII, § 711, Dec. 24, 1973, 87 Stat. 818, and replaced by Council of District of Columbia, as provided by section 401 of Pub. L. 93–198.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1978–2013 · leading case: Money v. Cullinane, 392 A.2d 998 (D.C. 1978).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Money v. Cullinane, 392 A.2d 998 (D.C. 1978). · cites it 8× “5 U.S.C. § 6324 (a) (Supp. V 1975), provides that when District police cannot perform their duties as a result of service-connected injury or illness they are entitled to administrative leave.”
Dist. of Columbia v. Jones, 442 A.2d 512 (D.C. 1982). · cites it 6× “Following a determination that this injury had been sustained in the performance of duty, Officer Jones was placed on administrative sick leave pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 6324 (a) (1976). [1] He continued in this status until July 26, 1976, when, upon review of the case, Inspector…”
Brown v. Jefferson, 451 A.2d 74 (D.C. 1982). · cites it 7× “NEBEKER, Associate Judge: This consolidated appeal presents for our determination the issue of whether 5 U.S.C. § 6324 (a) (1976) 1 and its counterpart, D.”
Hambsch v. United States, 490 U.S. 1054 (1989). · cites it 5× “Such a determination was critical to petitioner’s rights under 5 U. S. C. § 6324 (a), which provides: “Sick leave may not be charged to the account of a member of the Metropolitan Police force or the Fire Department of the District of Columbia, the United States Park Police…”
Hambsch v. United States, 12 Cl. Ct. 744 (Ct. Cl. 1987). · cites it 11× “he December 22, 1982, accident he claims that the agency determination was arbitrary, capricious, and clearly erroneous and that he should be reimbursed for his dental expenses including the recapping of his front tooth, as well as given paid administrative leave, rather than…”
Anthony R. Hambsch, III v. United States, 857 F.2d 763 (Fed. Cir. 1988). · cites it 3× “1 *764 Hambsch contends that under 5 U.S.C. § 6324 (1982) he was entitled to be placed on paid administrative sick leave.”
Hickman v. United States, 43 Fed. Cl. 424 (Fed. Cl. 1999). · cites it 3× “01, Clinic Sick Leave Policy and Procedure (Washington Metropolitan Area) is authorized by 5 U.S.C. § 6324 (1996). G.O. 33.01 consists of numbered sections I through IX.”
Barry v. Wilson, 448 A.2d 244 (D.C. 1982). · cites it 2× “From that date until February 3,1977, she was carried on administrative sick leave pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 6324 (1981). In February 1977, following an administrative hearing, it was determined that appellee was no longer entitled to administrative sick leave.”
Ronda Nunnally v. Dist. of Columbia Metro. Police Dep't, 80 A.3d 1004 (D.C. 2013). “The statute at issue in Money was 5 U.S.C. § 6324 (a). See 392 A.2d at 998 .”
Anthony R. Hambsch, III v. The United States, 848 F.2d 1228 (Fed. Cir. 1988). · cites it 2× “, leave without charge to accrued annual or sick leave) under 5 U.S.C. § 6324 , because of injuries suffered in a motorcycle accident while on duty.”
Dist. of Columbia v. Woody, 452 A.2d 324 (D.C. 1982). · cites it 2× “In 1979, appellee filed suit in Superior Court claiming that the administrative determination of the Metropolitan Police Department (Department) regarding the type of leave to which he was entitled under 5 U.S.C. § 6324 (1976) did not comport with due process.”
Hairston v. Dist. of Columbia, 638 F. Supp. 198 (D.D.C. 1986). “1982) (noting supercession of 5 U.S.C. § 6324 as to uniformed District employees).”
Show all 13 citing cases →
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.