FELTG’s Top Three Stories of 2025

,

By Deborah J. Hopkins, December 16, 2025

It’s that time again – mid-December, when we reflect on the previous 12 months and highlight the most-read FELTG articles of the year. Today we’ll count down the top three.

Number Three

Forcible Kissing, Comments About Lingerie, and References to Porn: What NOT to Do if You’re a Rear Admiral with an Attractive Colleague

Bad behavior by supervisors in the workplace always attracts a lot of attention, and our EEOC case summary about events that occurred at a Naval facility was no exception. The good news: the agency removed this offending official right away. The bad news: the agency’s action, while prompt, wasn’t enough to absolve the agency of liability because the harassment was conducted by a high-level official.

Number Two

How to Get to the Federal Circuit if the MSPB Loses its Quorum

While this article covers a fairly technical area, it certainly struck a nerve with the FELTG Nation. Interest peaked after President’s removal of MSPB Chair Cathy Harris years before the end of her Senate-confirmed term; she filed a lawsuit and SCOTUS has upheld her removal for now pending litigation in the lower courts. As a result of Harris’s removal the MSPB again lacked a quorum from early April until just a few weeks ago, when the Senate confirmed James Woodruff II. Long-time FELTG readers remember that MSPB lacked a quorum for over 5 years (January 2017 to March 2022) and 3,800 cases piled up as a result. Harris had steered the adjudication of all but a handful of this inventory when she was removed in February.

And….Number One

If Telework is an Effective Accommodation, Leave it Alone!

Is it any surprise that the number one topic for the year involves the revocation of telework? Questions abounded throughout 2025 regarding exceptions to the administration’s January 20 Return to In-Person Work memo, what would happen if agencies revoked existing telework accommodations, and whether agencies were permitted to allow telework to continue for individuals with medical or religious needs. With ongoing policy changes around government, we expect much more on this topic in 2026.

Honorable Mentions

These articles also saw a lot of traction, so we’d be remiss if we didn’t mention them.

The FELTG office will be closed December 23-January 2, and we look forward to reconnecting in the new year. No matter what changes await in 2026, we’ll be there alongside you for as long as you’ll have us. Thank you, dear Feds, for your service in 2025, and in all the years that came before. [email protected]

Upcoming training

 

The information presented here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Contacting FELTG in any way/format does not create the existence of an attorney-client relationship. If you need legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Have You Reviewed These Charges Lately? The Board Just Did.

,

By Deborah J. Hopkins, December 2, 2025

headshot of Deb

 

You may have missed it, but during the 43-day shutdown, the Senate confirmed James Woodruff II as a Member of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which means the Board has a quorum for the first time since early April. Woodruff joins Vice Chairman/Acting Chairman Henry Kerner, while the third seat remains vacant, and former Chairman Cathy Harris’ appeal on her removal is pending in Federal court.

Now that the shutdown is over, the Board is again operational. And…the new cases are coming out! (I’ll admit it: I am a self-professed MSPB Nerd® and I love reading new cases with my morning coffee.)

Kerner and Woodruff have issued one narrow precedential opinion, but a new NP case involving the removal of a GS-13 Deputy United States Marshal based on four charges caught my attention. Maisonet v. DOJ, AT-0752-24-0462-I-1 (Nov. 19, 2025)(NP). The Board’s review and discussion of the charges is worth a read, as it provides insight into how these Members view Board precedent – especially enlightening after a new Member is sworn in.

Charge 1: Misuse of Position

The conduct: The appellant accessed two separate restricted law enforcement systems to query an individual to further his own private interests related to a personal relationship.

Proof required to sustain the charge: To prove a charge of misuse of position, an agency must prove that the appellant misused his government position, resulting in private gain (the gain does not have to be financial). See Gardner v. VA, 123 M.S.P.R. 647, ¶ 11 (2016), clarified by Pridgen v. OMB, 2022 MSPB 31, ¶¶ 23-24. To prove its charge, the agency must show that the appellant actually received private gain, not just the appearance of private gain. See Mann v. HHS, 78 M.S.P.R. 1, 8 (1998).

Charge 2: Conduct Unbecoming a Deputy U. S. Marshal

The conduct: The appellant yelled at a superior, spoke unprofessionally to another superior, was disruptive during an office conversation, and was rude to a supervisor when she attempted to discuss the his performance review with him.

Proof required to sustain the charge: To prove the charge of conduct unbecoming, the agency must show that the charged conduct occurred and that the conduct was improper, unsuitable, or detracted from the appellant’s character or reputation. Miles v. Army, 55 M.S.P.R. 633, 637 (1992).

Charge 3: Failure to follow instructions

The conduct: The appellant failed to follow instructions given to him in a written memorandum when he attended a medical appointment while on administrative leave, and when he traveled to Honduras the next day while still on administrative leave.

Proof required to sustain the charge: To prove a charge of failure to follow instructions, the agency must show that (1) a proper instruction was given, and (2) the appellant failed to follow the policy or the instructions. The agency is not required to show that the failure to follow was intentional. Powell v. USPS, 122 M.S.P.R. 60, ¶ 5 (2014).

Charge 4: Failure to follow policy

The conduct: The appellant failed to follow USMS policy when he did not report his foreign travel, and failed to follow DOJ policy when he used his personal credit card to pay for lodging while on official travel.

Proof required to sustain the charge: To prove a charge of failure to follow policy or procedure, an agency must show that a proper policy or procedure existed and that the employee failed to follow it, without regard to whether the failure was intentional or unintentional. See, e.g., Hamilton v. USPS, 71 M.S.P.R. 547, 555-57 (1996).

In this case, the Board agreed with the AJ and upheld the removal, finding the agency proved all four charges (including most specifications), proved nexus, and that the penalty was reasonable. In other words, their decision perfectly aligned with over four decades of Board precedent.

No matter how long you’ve been doing this work, it’s always worth a revisit to see if the Board has changed anything in the way it interprets charges; sometimes they can surprise you (for the old-timers…remember Boo v. DHS from 2014?). [email protected]

Related training

The information presented here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Contacting FELTG in any way/format does not create the existence of an attorney-client relationship. If you need legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

If Telework is an Effective Accommodation – Leave it Alone!

,

By Deborah J. Hopkins, November 20, 2025

I say this too often: if I had a dollar for every time an agency unlawfully revoked an existing, effective accommodation, I’d be retired and relaxing in a hammock on an island somewhere.

But here I sit, not in a hammock but in the FELTG office writing yet another article about an agency that denied a request for continued telework as accommodation – despite the complainant’s successful performance track record while on telework, and her medical limitations which made commuting impossible. Linda A. v. Army, EEOC Req. No. 2023002848 (Sept. 18, 2023).

So, what exactly happened?

  • The complainant, a GS-14 Procurement Analyst, was hospitalized and had to use approximately six weeks of sick leave.
  • When she returned to work, management initially allowed her to telework full-time, but later told her she needed to go through the reasonable accommodation (RA) request process in order to continue full-time telework.
  • She timely submitted the RA request and provided medical documentation which indicated she could not drive or engage in prolonged standing because of frequent dizziness, chronic headaches, cervical radiculopathy, and impaired fasting glucose.
  • The agency denied her request “due to the existence of employee van pools commuting between [Complainant’s] residential area and [her] work site, [which provided Complainant] alternatives to driving daily to work”, as well as the offer of a scooter at work.

Id. at 2-3.

She filed a formal EEO complaint, alleging the agency discriminated against her based on her race (African-American), color (Black), age (over 40), sex (female), and disability. The administrative judge granted the agency summary judgment, and the complainant appealed to the EEOC.

The EEOC determined that the denial of the complainant’s reasonable accommodation was not based on her race, color, age, or sex, but that the agency erred during the reasonable accommodation process.

According to the Commission, the agency’s denial did not include any evidence that granting telework would have caused an undue hardship, because the complainant had already successfully teleworked for several months. In addition, the alternative accommodations the agency offered (a scooter and access to employee van pools) were ineffective because they did not adequately address the full range of the complainant’s documented medical needs.

Id. at 3.

As to the agency’s reconsideration request, the EEOC determined the agency did not demonstrate that its decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law, so its initial order requiring the agency to provide the complainant with an effective accommodation and pay compensatory damages, remained in effect.

If you encounter authorities in your agency that want to eliminate or severely restrict telework as accommodation, it would behoove them to read this case, which unfortunately is just one out of many with similar facts and conclusions. The law is well settled here. [email protected]

 

Related training

The information presented here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Contacting FELTG in any way/format does not create the existence of an attorney-client relationship. If you need legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Are There Legitimate Ways to Use AI in Federal Employment Law?

,

By Deborah J. Hopkins, September 25, 2025

Last week California’s Second District Court of Appeal fined an attorney $10,000 for filing an appeal that was full of fabricated citations. Turns out the appeal had been generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and not fact-checked before submission. This is a significant monetary fine, but certainly not the first time an attorney has been sanctioned for submitting a filing containing false information that was generated by AI.

It got me thinking, though: are there any areas of Federal employment law where AI might be helpful, and less risky? After all, the administration has released Executive Orders and action plans on incorporating this tool into government functions.

So, in the spirit of this article’s topic, rather than brainstorm ideas on my own I prompted ChatGPT to come up with some ideas for me. Below is a sample of its suggestions.

Potentially Good Ideas

Conversation and Interview Preparation

  • Use case: AI helps prepare scripts or questions for:
    • Employee performance feedback sessions
    • Weingarten meetings
    • Witness interviews during investigations
  • Example: AI helps draft neutral, legally sound questions for a misconduct interview while avoiding prohibited personnel practices.

Document Review and Organization

  • Use case: AI can extract and organize relevant facts from:
    • Email chains
    • Performance records
    • Investigative reports (e.g., from OIG or internal factfinders)
  • Example: AI scans 200 emails for references to missed deadlines or customer complaints to support a misconduct case.

And…Maybe Good Ideas?

Douglas Factor Analysis Assistant

  • Use case: AI can help agencies systematically analyze and document the Douglas factors for disciplinary actions.
  • Example: AI prompts the proposing official to provide input for each Douglas factor and helps generate a consistent rationale.

FELTG’s concern: This is risky if the proposing (and deciding) officials let AI do all the work and don’t make necessary modifications, or familiarize themselves with — or adopt — the AI rationale. Plus, a deciding official who does a separate AI inquiry could potentially get a completely different Douglas analysis and risk a due process violation.

Case Law and Policy Research

  • Use case: AI tools (or legal-specific AI platforms like Casetext or Westlaw AI) can quickly search MSPB, FLRA, EEOC case law and agency policies relevant to conduct or performance cases.
  • Example: An attorney uses AI to pull cases supporting a 14-day suspension for similar misconduct in another agency, helping ensure penalty consistency under Douglas factors.

FELTG’s concern: As well-seasoned practitioners know, agencies are not required to discipline in a similar manner as any other agency; the MSPB recently affirmed in Singh v. USPS, 2022 MSPB 15, that consistency of penalty in most cases should be limited to employees in the same work unit, with the same supervisor, who engaged in the same or similar misconduct.

AI did, of course, provide a disclaimer highlighting important cautions:

  • Human oversight is required: AI suggestions must be reviewed by HR, legal, or supervisory professionals to ensure accuracy and fairness.
  • Privacy and security: Federal data must be protected; AI tools used should be compliant with federal IT security standards (e.g., FedRAMP).
  • Bias and equity: Ensure AI outputs are checked for implicit bias and EEO compliance. (Note: I’m not sure how to do this but maybe some tech minds can assist? Also, apparently AI is not up to date on the prohibition of the term “implicit bias” from being used in Federal agencies. Yikes.)

So what do you think? How are you using AI in your agency’s employment law actions? [email protected]

Upcoming training

The information presented here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Contacting FELTG in any way/format does not create the existence of an attorney-client relationship. If you need legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Reprimand in Lieu of Suspension: An Underutilized (But Valuable) Discipline Alternative

,

By Deborah J. Hopkins, September 4, 2025

headshot of Deb

During FELTG classes, certain topics come up again and again. One of the most asked-about topics in 2025 is how to draft the discipline alternative known as the Reprimand in Lieu of a Suspension (RLS).

If you’ve attended any of our classes on discipline, you know that we really don’t like suspensions. They usually hurt the agency more than they hurt the misbehaving employee. On suspension days, the agency has to forgo the services of the suspended employee. Coworkers have to pick up the slack, which can hurt morale. Supervisors sometimes have to pay another employee overtime to cover for the suspended employee. Or, the work just doesn’t get done.

So, with all the downsides, why do we ever suspend – especially if there’s an alternative that doesn’t really have any downsides? And that’s where the RLS comes into consideration.

While progressive discipline is not mandatory in every case of employee misconduct, the MSPB still gives significant weight to progressive discipline when evaluating an agency’s Douglas Factors analysis.

There are generally three steps to traditional progressive discipline:

  • First offense: Reprimand
  • Second offense: Suspension
  • Third offense: Removal

The variation that we generally recommend is to replace the second offense suspension with an RLS. Here’s how that would work:

  • First offense: Reprimand, as usual
  • Second offense:

a. Propose a short suspension.

b. At the bottom of the proposal letter, offer the employee the option to voluntarily accept a Reprimand in Lieu of a Suspension (see template below).

c. If the employee accepts, you have avoided the workplace harm caused by a suspension, with the bonus that you will not have to deal with a grievance or EEO complaint.

  • Third offense – Remove as usual, based on the two prior acts of discipline.

The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) has recognized the RLS alternative (under varying names) as equivalent to a suspension for decades, as long as the employee agrees to it, or the option is written into a union contract. (There’s no case law on how the MSPB would handle a unilaterally-imposed RLS.) If you’re not using this tool, you’re missing out on an employee-friendly, management-supporting approach to discipline that can really make your work life so much easier.

If the employee elects not to sign the RLS, the Deciding Official simply makes a decision on the proposal and employee’s response, as required through standard discipline procedures.

Here’s a template; the italicized section at the bottom serves as the optional RLS.

Reprimand in Lieu of Suspension Agreement Format

[Agency Letterhead]

From: Sam Supervisor, Head, Administrative Division, Logistics Department

To: Eduardo Employee, Project Clerk, GS-303-9

Subj: Proposed Two-Day Suspension

Date: April 15, 20XX

By this letter I am proposing that you be suspended without pay for two days for the following misconduct:

  • On March 7, 20XX, I informed you that the lunch break period for our office is from noon to 12:30. Yesterday, I observed you leaving your desk to go to lunch at 11:50 AM and not returning until 1:45 PM.

In selecting this penalty, I note that I reprimanded you for similar misconduct on March 14, 20XX.

You have the right to respond to this proposal in writing and in person with Branch Chief Marlene Manager. If you choose to exercise this right, you may meet with Branch Chief Manager at 10:00 AM on April 17, 20XX in the main conference room, Building 123. For information as to this and other rights you might have, you may consult with Hank Richards in Human Resources, (202) 123-4567.

 

____________________________

[Supervisor’s signature]

______________________________________________________________________

By my signature below, I accept responsibility for this act of misconduct, acknowledge that discipline is warranted, and accept a Reprimand in Lieu of a Suspension as an alternative form of discipline. I understand that the agency will consider this Reprimand in Lieu of a Suspension equivalent to the proposed suspension for the purpose of progressive discipline should I engage in future misconduct. Finally, I hereby waive my rights to challenge this action in any manner or forum.

 

 

_____________________­­­­­­­__________________________________

Eduardo Employee                                                       Date

______________________________________________________________________

And there you have it. Trust us, it’s worth the offer. [email protected]

Related training:

The information presented here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Contacting FELTG in any way/format does not create the existence of an attorney-client relationship. If you need legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Is a Compressed Schedule – to Permit Attendance at Mosque Prayer Services – an Undue Hardship?

,

By Deborah J. Hopkins, August 27, 2025

In recent weeks the Trump administration has put an emphasis on Federal employee rights to express religious beliefs in the workplace, and has also highlighted the requirement that agencies reasonably accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs and practices of employees unless doing so would cause the agency an undue hardship. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j). And while a recent OPM memo only gives examples specifically related to Christianity and Judaism, the law identifies religion much more broadly and in addition to major world religions includes less-common belief systems as well. EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 12-I, A-1.

A recent EEO decision considered a Muslim employee’s claim that her agency unlawfully failed to accommodate her based on religion. Augustine B. v. VA, EEOC Appeal No. 2023004016 (Aug. 4, 2025). The complainant, a VA physician, requested that her schedule be adjusted to allow her to attend Friday afternoon prayer services at her mosque, and she offered to work longer days Monday through Thursday plus Friday mornings to ensure she completed 40 hours of work per week.

The agency ultimately granted her request for Friday afternoons off, but rather than agree to her proposed compressed schedule it provided two alternative options: the complainant “had to either start working six days a week or transfer to a part time position with significantly fewer hours.” Id. at 1. The complaint accepted the part time schedule, although “begrudgingly.” Id.

The Commission considered the reasonableness of the complainant’s request and compared it to the agency’s offered alternatives:

  • Regarding the six-day work schedule option, it found “no justification … to rationalize depriving Complainant of the customary benefit of two full days off. Nor does the Agency explain why it even made sense to go through the trouble of having Complainant work on Saturday rather than just letting her put in a [sic] extra hours on weekdays.” at 5.
  • On the part-time schedule option, it held that this offer was not reasonably comparable to the full-time job the complainant was originally hired for, as it resulted in a 40% reduction in hours and pay. at 5-6.

While the agency argued that providing the requested accommodation would be an undue hardship, the EEOC disagreed, finding that the requested accommodation “squarely eliminates the scheduling conflict with Complainant’s prayer service without unduly encumbering her working conditions or her religious practice.” Id. at 6. The EEOC also did not agree with the agency’s speculation that providing a compressed schedule would compromise patient care and burden other physicians. As (the new case writer at) OFO put it:

We are not persuaded that mere disgruntlement in the ranks over Complainant’s accommodation suffices to establish an undue hardship. To hold otherwise would mean that an employee’s entitlement to religious accommodation would often hinge on the magnanimity of her coworkers. An employee with the misfortune of having stingy colleagues would almost never receive accommodation.

Id. at 8.

The Commission held that a partially compressed work schedule would have been reasonable and would not have imposed an undue hardship, so the agency was liable for failure to accommodate. Id. [email protected]

Related training:

The information presented here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Contacting FELTG in any way/format does not create the existence of an attorney-client relationship. If you need legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Forcible Kissing, Comments About Lingerie, and References to Porn: What NOT to Do if You’re a Rear Admiral with an Attractive Colleague

,

By Deborah J. Hopkins, August 12, 2025

Imagine you’re a female civilian Public Affairs Specialist. Your job involves building and managing relationships betweenheadshot of Deb your agency and its stakeholders – including the media and members of the public – and you enjoy sharing all the positive work your agency is doing.

Now imagine the highest-ranking official in your workplace, a male Rear Admiral, does the following to you at work:

  • In January, he asks you to do him a favor by speaking to your husband about something – and he suggests you wear sexy lingerie to persuade your husband.
  • On several dates in August, he gives you a “high five,” but instead of flat-palm contact he interlaces his fingers with yours.
  • In October, while he’s telling a story, he demonstrates an event from the story by physically turning you around and placing his back against your back.
  • In October or November, while you’re standing by your desk, he approaches you and asks if a picture of you on your computer is a profile picture or a “porn” picture.
  • In November, he asks you what is wrong with your hair, commenting that “it looked like you had a little morning action.” When you reply neutrally that you had been wearing a hat, he once again alludes to your sex life.
  • In early December, he grabs your face and kisses you on the mouth.

Unfortunately this is no hypothetical – this happened to one of your Federal colleagues in her workplace, and she filed an EEO complaint alleging a hostile work environment based on sex. Susan M. v. Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 2022001003 (Jun. 12, 2023).

The agency’s own investigation substantiated the allegations and found that the Rear Admiral engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct toward the complainant, and violated the agency’s sexual harassment policies. Id. at 2. In fact, the incidents were serious enough to warrant an IG investigation and the removal of Rear Admiral as Commander. Id.

On appeal to EEOC, the Agency argued that because it took prompt and effective corrective action when it removed the Rear Admiral, there was no basis for imputing liability. But because the Rear Admiral was the highest-ranking official at the facility, the Commission found the “alter ego” theory of liability was appropriate. The alter ego theory applies in a harassment case where the harasser is of sufficiently high rank to be treated as the Agency’s proxy, resulting in his conduct being directly imputed to the Agency – regardless of the agency’s anti-harassment efforts. See Sebek v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 07A00005 (March 8, 2001). Id. at 3.

The fact that the complainant reported the harassment within days of the December kissing event contradicted an additional agency argument that the complainant unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities.

The Commission concluded the agency was liable for the Rear Admiral’s harassing conduct, and that it was sufficient to create a hostile and offensive work environment. [email protected]

Related training:

The information presented here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Contacting FELTG in any way/format does not create the existence of an attorney-client relationship. If you need legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

The Legal Boundaries of Faith at Work: When Does Prayer Become an Undue Hardship?

,

By Deborah J. Hopkins, July 23, 2025

A few days ago OPM issued a new memo, Reasonable Accommodations for Religious Purposes (July 16, 2025), which highlighted law that’s been in place for decades but bears repeating:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in employment because of an individual’s religion … The statute requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious observances, practices, and beliefs unless doing so would cause an undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2; 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1605.1.

A reasonable accommodation for religion is an adjustment to the work environment (including things like work schedule, work location, or dress code) that will permit the employee to comply with his sincerely held religious beliefs or practices. See Ian S. v. Treasury, EEOC Appeal No. 0120160622 (Apr. 27, 2018); Complainant v. DOJ, EEOC Appeal No. 0120132112 (Apr. 17, 2015).

OPM’s new memo discusses types of accommodations agencies may need to provide, including telework, remote work and flexible work schedules – and it explicitly identifies the requirement to accommodate employees whose religious beliefs require them to participate in prayer.

I have to wonder if the folks who drafted the memo had recently been reading Vernie M. v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No. 2020004103 (2022). This case dealt with an employee who requested religious accommodation in the form of an empty room where she could conduct her prayers. Her supervisor denied her request because the agency had a policy that “religion and politics were not allowed to be discussed on the workroom floor.” Id. at 4.

While this case involved a number of other claims, on the religious failure to accommodate claim EEOC held that the complainant stated a prima facie case because she “has a bona fide religious belief, Christianity; the Agency was aware of her belief and desire to utilize an empty room for prayer; and the Agency enforced its requirement that employees not discuss religion in the workplace.” Id. at 6. Stating a prima facie case, however, doesn’t mean there will be a finding of discrimination; the burden then shifts to the agency to show that it either provided the accommodation, or that providing accommodation would cause an undue hardship.

EEOC continued:

We understand the Agency’s desire to keep the workplace free from conflicts that may arise out of sensitive topics such as religion and politics; however, the Agency presented no argument that Complainant’s use of the empty room for prayer posed an undue hardship. Likewise, the Agency provided no alternative accommodation nor discussed the matter with Complainant in order to determine if an alternative accommodation was available. Therefore, we find that the Agency violated Title VII when Complainant’s request for a religious accommodation was denied.

Id.

We’ve seen many cases, new and old, where the assertion of a policy that conflicted with a religious practice was NOT enough to prove undue hardship. With the renewed focus on religious accommodation in the workplace, now is a critical time to review the law. [email protected]

Related training:

The information presented here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Contacting FELTG in any way/format does not create the existence of an attorney-client relationship. If you need legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

What Everyone’s Asking: A Q&A on Conflict, Accountability, and Morale

,

June 2, 2025

It’s been quite a year so far, with more change than many of us have experienced in the entirety of our lifetimes. Some people handle change well; for others, it’s quite the challenge.

Amid all the change, FELTG caught up with instructor Ann Modlin (pictured at right) as she was preparing for her June 12 class Management Essentials for 2025: Address Conflict, Increase Accountability & Build Morale. Ann’s two-plus decades of experience as a government attorney – and, for many years, a supervisor – combined with her insight into current Federal workforce challenges, create the perfect confluence for a training that combines current events, the law, and practical skills to help make the workplace more efficient, and yes, enjoyable.

Read on for our questions and her answers.

FELTG: Why is now a good time for supervisors and advisors to think about the relationship among conflict, accountability and morale?

AM: Because it’s always a good time to analyze the workplace aspects of conflict, accountability, and morale. The three concepts play on each other every day, and too often supervisors and advisors do not take the time to really assess that interplay. Understanding that conflict is not inherently bad, but instead taking the steps to understand it, helps with building accountability and morale. And that makes the workplace better for everyone.

FELTG: What potential conflicts should employers be aware of as more employees are now reporting to work onsite?

AM: Conflict is typically a function of personality. When people interact more on a daily basis, as will occur with the shift to working onsite, those personality differences are more obvious and have a greater chance of resulting in conflict. Early intervention and establishing boundaries will go a long way.

FELTG:  Do you have any suggestions about the best way for a supervisor to handle a conflict between coworkers?

AM: The key to handling conflict between coworkers is to understand fundamental personality differences. Seventy-five percent of people have different core personality types than our own, but most people do not contemplate how that impacts on interpersonal relationships. A knowledgeable supervisor can help employees appreciate their differences, which can be a helpful step to mitigate the conflict.

Join us on June 12 for much more information on these important topics, or bring this class specifically to your agency. It’s too important to miss. [email protected]

Related training:

Is Taking a Nap Every Two Hours a Reasonable Accommodation for Narcolepsy?

,

By Deborah J. Hopkins, May 15, 2025

 

Key facts:

  • The complainant had two reasonable accommodations for his narcolepsy – periodic naps, and flexibility to travel to obtain medication refills.
  • The agency terminated the complainant after he requested – and the agency granted – a modification to his medication refill travel schedule.
  • The EEOC found the agency retaliated against the complainant because of his accommodation requests, and created a hostile work environment when it transferred him to a new position and then terminated his employment.

This case involves a contractor who had worked with the State Department for 30 years, and who for the past 10 years had worked in Iraq as a Systems Administrator. In October 2020 he claimed the agency discriminated against him on the bases of disability (Type I Narcolepsy, Colon Cancer) and in reprisal for prior protected EEO activity when:

  1. On July 20, 2020, he was terminated from his position as a contractor for the agency; and
  2. Since the fall of 2018, he was subjected to a hostile work environment characterized by, but not limited to, heightened scrutiny and disapproval of his reasonable accommodation.

Wes L. v. State, EEOC App. No. 2021005122, 2 (May 15, 2023).

The case primarily focuses on the reasonable accommodation requests related to the complainant’s narcolepsy, “which flares up when he misses his medication. If he misses his medication, he experiences hallucinations, nausea, double vision, and daytime sleepiness. … Because he experiences daytime drowsiness and sudden attacks of sleep, his narcolepsy reportedly impacts his sleep, ability to work, and his ability to eat.” Id.

Agency-approved accommodations for the complainant’s narcolepsy included a 15-minute nap every two hours while he was on duty, and the flexibility to return to the United States periodically to obtain medication that was not available to him in Iraq.

On a 2020 trip to the United States he requested to return to Iraq on a flight a few weeks later than originally scheduled, so that he could obtain enough medication to last him an additional three months in Iraq. The agency granted the request, but then terminated him just days later, claiming that the last-minute change of plans for his return flight left the agency unable to replace the complainant with another contractor, which caused a customer service hardship.

While the Commission found this was a legitimate, nondiscriminatory articulation of the agency’s reasoning, it also found the agency’s claim was pretextual and the facts did not support the agency’s assertion about the timing of the complainant’s request to change his flight. Therefore the agency “retaliated against Complainant in violation of the Rehabilitation Act when it asked that Complainant be removed from his post with the Agency following his request for reasonable accommodation.” Id. at 7.

The case also addressed the complainant’s claims of hostile work environment harassment and found that the complainant’s job transfer (motivated by his supervisor’s disapproval of his need for naps) and his termination amounted to tangible employment actions taken because of the reasonable accommodation requests. [email protected]

Related training: