U.S. Code » Title 5 » Part PART III— EMPLOYEES › Subpart Subpart G— Insurance and Annuities › Chapter CHAPTER 85— UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— EMPLOYEES GENERALLY

5 U.S.C. § 8502

Compensation under State agreement

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 5 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The Secretary of Labor, on behalf of the United States, may enter into an agreement with a State, or with an agency administering the unemployment compensation law of a State, under which the State agency shall—(1) pay, as agent of the United States, compensation under this subchapter to Federal employees; and(2) otherwise cooperate with the Secretary and with other State agencies in paying compensation under this subchapter.(b) The agreement shall provide that compensation will be paid by the State to a Federal employee in the same amount, on the same terms, and subject to the same conditions as the compensation which would be payable to him under the unemployment compensation law of the State if his Federal service and Federal wages assigned under section 8504 of this title to the State had been included as employment and wages under that State law.[(c) Repealed. Pub. L. 90–83, § 1(86)(B), Sept. 11, 1967, 81 Stat. 218.](d) A determination by a State agency with respect to entitlement to compensation under an agreement is subject to review in the same manner and to the same extent as determinations under the State unemployment compensation law, and only in that manner and to that extent.(e) Each agreement shall provide the terms and conditions on which it may be amended or terminated.(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 586; Pub. L. 90–83, § 1(86), Sept. 11, 1967, 81 Stat. 218.)

Historical and Revision Notes

1966 Act

Derivation

U.S. Code

Revised Statutes and

Statutes at Large

 

42 U.S.C. 1362.

Sept. 1, 1954, ch. 1212, § 4(a) “Sec. 1502”, 68 Stat. 1131.

 

 

Sept. 13, 1960, Pub. L. 86–778, § 542(b)(1)(A), 74 Stat. 985.

In subsection (a), the words “under this subchapter” are substituted for “on the basis provided in subsection (b) of this section”.

In subsection (b), the words “with respect to unemployment after December 31, 1954” are omitted as obsolete.

In subsection (c), the words “with respect to unemployment after December 31, 1960” are omitted as obsolete. In the last sentence, the application to section 8503(b) is omitted and carried into that section.

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

This section amends 5 U.S.C. 8502 to eliminate certain provisions that are now obsolete. The obsolete provisions were based on section 542(b)(1)(A) of the act of September 13, 1960, 74 Stat. 985, that amended section 1502(b) of the Social Security Act effective January 1, 1961, but only in the case of weeks of unemployment beginning before January 1, 1966. Any existing rights are preserved by section 7 of this bill.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1970–2022 · leading case: Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace, & Agric. Implement Workers v. Brock, 477 U.S. 274 (1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace, & Agric. Implement Workers v. Brock, 477 U.S. 274 (1986). · cites it 4× “Even though the provision governing review of benefit determinations in that program, 5 U. S. C. § 8502 (d), is nearly identical to 19 U.”
Weaver v. Wallace, 565 S.W.2d 867 (Tenn. 1978). · cites it 2× “The statute provides that the United States may enter into an agreement with a state, or with an agency administering the unemployment compensation law of a state, under which the agency *872 will pay compensation to federal employees who have lost their jobs in the same amount,…”
Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers v. Donovan, 568 F. Supp. 1047 (D.D.C. 1983). · cites it 3× “§ 2311 (d) is virtually identical to that in 5 U.S.C. § 8502 (d) regarding state unemployment compensation payments to federal employees.”
Christian v. New York State Dep't of Labor, Div. of Emp., 347 F. Supp. 1158 (S.D.N.Y. 1972). · cites it 4× “" 5 U.S.C. §§ 8502 (b), 8503(c). We come, however, to 5 U.”
Hill v. Commonwealth, 385 A.2d 1032 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1978). · cites it 2× “See 5 U.S.C. §§8502 , 8505. At all times pertinent to this case, federal law provided that eligibility for benefits should be determined by state agencies under state law, but that findings made by the federal employing agency concerning, inter alia, “the reasons for termination…”
Gibbs v. United State Army, 116 A.3d 427 (Del. Super. Ct. 2014). · cites it 2× “Although a state’s judiciary has the capacity to review cases involving unemployment benefits for ex-servicemen, 5 U.S.C.A. § 8502 of the code has made clear that the determinations by the relevant military branch about a person’s discharge may not be altered through the *433…”
Conrad v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 47 Cal. App. 3d 237 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 2× “) A state agency which enters into an agreement with the United States Secretary of Labor to administer an unemployment compensation program for federal employees acts as the agent of the United States for that purpose.”
Gillead v. United States of Am. (Transp. Sec. Admin.) (D.V.I. 2018). · cites it 27× “Virgin Islands have entered into an agreement that satisfies the provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 8502 ; and (2) if such an agreement has been reached, whether the Court may exercise jurisdiction over this matter.”
Jennings v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 675 A.2d 810 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1996). “5 U.S.C. § 8502 ; Rosler v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 116 Pa.”
Anita Smith v. Dist. Unemployment Comp. Bd., Paul R. Ignatius, Sec'y of the Navy, 435 F.2d 433 (D.C. Cir. 1970). “One, now in 5 U.S.C. § 8502 , provides for administration of unemployment compensation of Federal employees pursuant to agreements reached between the Secretary of Labor and the states.”
Ortiz v. New Mexico Emp. Sec. Dep't, 731 P.2d 1357 (N.M. Ct. App. 1986). “5 U.S.C. § 8502 (b) (1976). Relying on Section 51-1-5(C)(2) and (4), ESD denied the claims in this case on the ground that the “between terms” section applied, and the district court affirmed that decision.”
Rosler v. Commonwealth, 542 A.2d 624 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1988). “service— (I) for the convenience of the Government under an early release program, (II) because of medical disqualification, pregnancy, parenthood, or any service-incurred injury or disability, (III) because of hardship, or (IV) because • of personality disorders or inaptitude…”
Show all 22 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.