Authority to Permit Part-Time Employees to Work Regularly Scheduled Workweeks of 33 to 39 Hours
Background
- Pre-1978 federal law allowed agencies to schedule part-time employees to work any hours under 40; no fixed minimum or maximum beyond 40 hours for full-time staff.
- The Federal Employees Part-Time Career Employment Act of 1978 defines “part-time career employment” as 16–32 hours per week (or 32–64 hours biweekly under certain schedules).
- The Act requires agencies to establish and maintain part-time career employment programs and counts part-time career employees for ceilings as fractions of full-time equivalents.
- OPM promulgated regulations (1979) concluding that the Act bars regular scheduling of part-timers above 32 hours, with a grandfathering for preexisting part-timers and allowing sub-16 hour schedules under other authorities.
- DOJ’s OLC notes that the Act’s framework is designed to promote part-time career employment and that benefits provisions favor career-part-time employees, but do not expressly prohibit part-time arrangements outside the defined range.
- The opinion ultimately holds that the Act does not repeal or clearly limit preexisting authority to schedule part-time employees for 33–39 hours per week, and thus such schedules may be permissible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Act a limitation on preexisting scheduling authority? | CRT argues the Act preserves agency scheduling authority unless explicit | OPM argues the Act redefines part-time career employment to 16–32 hours | Act does not limit preexisting scheduling authority |
| Does the Act redefine part-time employment to 16–32 hours overall? | CRT contends no broad redefinition; leaves prior schedules intact | OPM contends the Act narrows part-time definition to 16–32 hours | Statutory text does not mandate such redefinition; ambiguity exists but reading favors non-restriction |
| Does the Act's structure/purpose support limiting hours to 16–32? | Drafters aimed to promote 16–32 hour schedules | Act’s purpose is to increase part-time opportunities, not prohibit outside ranges | Structure and purpose do not conclusively restrict hours beyond 32 |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439 (1988) (presumption against implied repeals; text controls interpretation)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (deference to agency interpretations of silent/ambiguous statutes (not controlling here))
- Lamie v. U.S. Trustee, 540 U.S. 526 (2003) (textual plain meaning governs when not absurd)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., 545 U.S. 546 (2005) (statutory interpretation; textual language controls)