3 Things to Know About the Federal Vaccine Requirement’s Injunction

,

By Deborah Hopkins, February 7, 2022

On January 21, a Federal district judge in Texas issued an injunction on the vaccine requirement for Federal employees, established last September by Executive Order 14043. The Biden Administration has appealed the injunction and has requested a stay while the appeal makes its way through the system. While we await the outcome, there are a few nuances of which your agency should be aware.

1. Your agency should still collect information about employee and future employee vaccination status.

Though the vaccine requirement is on hold, the information on vaccination status is important to agencies as they determine safety protocols for the physical workplace. Agencies are not prohibited from using information on vaccination status to set guidelines for masking, distancing, testing, travel, and quarantine requirements.

2. Your agency does not need to rescind discipline that has already been issued and completed for failure to comply with the vaccine requirement.

While most agencies have not yet implemented discipline for employees who were not vaccinated by the November deadline, some have. The Safer Federal Workforce Taskforce guidance is clear: During the pendency of the appeal on the injunction, the discipline should remain as issued. That said, the discipline should not be relied upon as an aggravating factor in any new disciplinary actions.

3. If your agency predicated an offer of employment on a vaccine requirement, it should amend the offer and remove the vaccine requirement.

However, because this injunction is not the final disposition on the issues, the Task Force suggests the following language be included in the amended offer:

“To ensure compliance with an applicable preliminary nationwide injunction, which may be supplemented, modified, or vacated, depending on the course of ongoing litigation, the Federal Government will take no action to implement or enforce the COVID-19 vaccination requirement pursuant to Executive Order 14043 on Requiring Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination for Federal Employees. Federal agencies may request information regarding the vaccination status of selected applicants for the purposes of implementing other workplace safety protocols, such as protocols related to masking, physical distancing, testing, travel, and quarantine.”

There’s much more to discuss on this topic, including information on exemption requests, what agencies should do if they are exempt from the injunction, and whether agencies are permitted to establish independent vaccine requirements for their workforce. Join FELTG next Thursday, February 17, at 1 pm ET for the 60-minute virtual event Vaccine Mandate on Hold: What Now for Accommodation, Discipline, and Hiring? [email protected]

Takeaways from OPM’s Proposed Regs on Accountability and Discrimination

,

By Deborah Hopkins, January 18, 2022

Well, FELTG Nation, the changes keep coming. Two weeks ago, OPM issued proposed new rules on 5 CFR Parts 315, 432 and 752, as a result of President Biden’s Executive Order 14003, and also proposed regulations for 5 CFR part 724, the Elijah E. Cummings Federal Employee Anti-Discrimination Act of 2020.

These are proposed rules and cannot be finalized until OPM considers public comments. You can comment until the first week of February. While you ponder whether you’d like to submit comments for OPM’s consideration, we’ve pulled a few notable pieces from each proposed rule, and have some thoughts of our own.

5 CFR Parts 315, 432 and 752

Performance

If you read the proposed rule, you’ll notice that OPM has a disagreement with the Federal Circuit about the Santos v. NASA case from March 2021. The Federal Circuit ruled that agencies must justify unacceptable performance before placing an employee on a PIP. OPM disagrees that the statute issues this requirement and relies on its own interpretation:

[A]n agency may not take a performance-based adverse action against an employee whom the agency determined was performing unacceptably unless the agency first provides the employee with notice and an opportunity to improve, and the employee continues to perform unacceptably. The determination to be reviewed on appeal to the Board and its reviewing courts is the final determination of unacceptable performance following the PIP, not any interim determination leading to the PIP.

It will be interesting to see what the Federal Circuit thinks about this.

Another interesting item on performance indicates OPM thinks an agency may need (or at least want) to prove they engaged in performance counseling with an employee prior to the initiation of a PIP:

Agencies should also remain mindful that third parties (for example, arbitrators and judges) place a strong emphasis on a supervisor’s effort to assist the employee in improving his or her performance. Evidence that the supervisor engaged an employee in discussion, counseling, training, or the like prior to the opportunity period may assist the agency in developing a stronger case before a third party that the employee was given a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance before a performance-based action is taken. [bold mine]

This has never been a legal requirement. What’s unclear to us at FELTG is if OPM is setting this as a requirement, suggesting it is a good idea, or perhaps supposing this will somehow meet the Santos requirement in a different way.

Misconduct

President Trump’s 2018 Executive Order 13839 included guidance on penalty determination for agencies, and OPM’s regs which became effective in November 2020, adopted much of that language. In the newly proposed regulations, language about penalty determination and comparator employees will be removed completely. These principles are still in MSPB caselaw but will not be in the updated regulations. OPM seems to want to leave these decisions up to individual agencies.

General Observations

  • The term “business day” will no longer exist in OPM regulations, as that was derived directly from Executive Order 13839. As a result, the timeline for decisions on proposed disciplinary actions is not a hard deadline. It is being left up to agencies. OPM still encourages agencies to act promptly.
  • Clean record settlements are back. The regulation prohibiting agencies from removing discipline from an employee’s OPF is being removed. OPM’s justification for this is, among other things, “the prohibition of clean record agreements hampers agencies’ ability to resolve informal and formal complaints at an early stage and with minimal costs to the agency.”
  • Agencies will no longer be required to provide mandatory notification to supervisors at 30 months and one month before the end of an employee’s probationary period. OPM pointed out that agencies are still encouraged “to notify supervisors that an employee’s probationary period is ending, [but] OPM believes the frequency and timing of notifications should be left up to the discretion of each agency.”
  • The regs are FINALLY being updated to include the dual status technicians in the National Guard who gained coverage under the 2018 NDAA.
  • Agencies no longer need to notify OPM if they extend an employee’s notice period beyond 30 days.

5 CFR part 724

The Elijah E. Cummings Federal Employee Anti-Discrimination Act of 2020 went into effect Jan. 1, 2021. The new law modifies the No FEAR Act and places requirements on agencies related to findings of discrimination.

According to OPM, the proposed regulations will require an agency to:

  • Provide notice, in an accessible format, of a finding of intentionally committed discriminatory (including retaliatory) acts on the public internet website (linked directly from the home page) of the agency after all appeals have been exhausted.
  • Submit the annual report in an accessible, electronic format prescribed by the Director of OPM.
  • Submit a disciplinary action report, in an accessible, electronic format, to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
  • Establish, or leverage, a system to track each complaint of discrimination; and
  • Provide a notation of any adverse action taken under section 7512 of title 5, United States Code, for a covered act of discrimination (including retaliation) in the personnel record of an agency employee found to have intentionally committed discriminatory (including retaliatory) acts, after all appeals are exhausted.
  • Update No FEAR Act training to comply with the new provisions of the Statute.
  • Train new employees within 90 calendar days of appointment, including employees who transfer from one Federal agency to another.
  • Train all existing employees on a training cycle of no longer than every two years.

We can help you with those training requirements. You know where to find us! [email protected]

The State of the Civil Service: 2022 Edition

, , ,

By Deborah Hopkins, January 11, 2022

It’s now 2022, and over the past 12 months there have been significant changes in the Federal civil service – common any time there’s a change in administration, but more so in this past year than any other year I can recall. As I’ve done for the past several Januarys, I’d like to share some highlights and happenings (and, unfortunately, non-happenings) in the world of Federal employment law.

Vaccine Requirement

On September 9, President Biden issued Executive Order 14043, which required all Federal employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19, unless they qualified for a legal exemption. These exemptions only apply when employees have a medical condition or sincerely held religious belief that prohibits them from being vaccinated. Even then, exemptions will only be granted if doing so does not cause an undue hardship on agency operations. The deadline to be “fully vaccinated” was November 22.

In December, the administration issued guidance telling agencies to wait until the new year to take any disciplinary actions involving a loss of pay (suspensions, demotions, or removals) for employees who fail to be vaccinated and don’t qualify for a legal exemption.

Now that it’s 2022, agencies are free to move forward with the steps of progressive discipline as set forth in the guidance.

This EO has gone largely unchallenged, whereas the vaccine requirement for Federal contractors, and those for employees outside the Federal government, have seen numerous Court challenges and injunctions.

Executive Orders

President Biden issued 77 Executive Orders in 2021, many within his first few days in office. Below are just a few that directly impact Federal employees.

  • 13985: Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government
  • 13988: Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation
  • 14003: Protecting the Federal Workforce (this EO rescinded President Trump’s three Federal workforce EOs from 2018, plus the EO on Schedule F designation)
  • 14043: Requiring Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination for Federal Employees

MSPB

Last year, President Biden nominated three individuals to serve as members of the Merit Systems Protection Board.

In October, the nominees were voted out of committee, which means the next and final step is a vote from the Senate, where a simple majority could confirm the nominees.

As of this writing, that vote has not been scheduled and we have no indication when, or if, a vote will occur.

The last time there was a quorum at the MSPB was Jan. 7, 2017. The backlog of Petitions for Review has now reached over 3,600. If and when the nominees get confirmed they will have a LOT on the agenda besides the backlog, including:

  • Assessing cases under new performance requirements, as a result of the March 2021 Federal Circuit decision Santos v. NASA
  • Challenges to Administrative Judge authority, as a result of Lucia v. SEC
  • Interpretations on the newish VA accountability law
    • This includes the burden of proof in misconduct cases, as a result of the August 2021 Federal Circuit decision Rodriguez v. VA
  • Untangling the timeline in cases involving several Executive Orders and OPM regulations that were issued first under the Trump administration and then rescinded under the Biden administration

We can only hope these confirmations will occur soon. If so, we should start getting MSPB decisions in time for MSPB Law Week, March 28 – April 1. Register soon and save your seat.

EEOC

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been very busy over the past twelve months, in the Federal sector and beyond. In addition to taking on an integral role in President Biden’s inclusion agenda, the Commission has also regularly provided updated guidance related to the COVID-19 pandemic and related EEO issues.

More recently, the EEOC cautioned employers against illegal reprisal related to vaccine exemption requests. We’re tackling that in the January 19 webinar Stop the Spread of COVID-related Retaliation in the Federal Workplace.

For more, join us for EEO Counselor training later this month or EEOC Law Week in April. And be sure to check out Dan Gephart’s recent interview with EEOC Chair Charlotte Burrows about what agencies can expect in the world of EEO in 2022.

FLRA

The MSPB isn’t the only agency dealing with a backlog. The Federal Labor Relations Authority has several hundred Unfair Labor Practice cases pending review. In addition, two nominees for Authority members are still awaiting Senate confirmation. Sound familiar? Of course, the significant difference between these confirmations and the MSPB confirmations is that there are currently Authority members in acting positions, so there’s a quorum and decisions can still be issued.

In addition to quickly overturning President Trump’s union-related EOs, the Biden Administration has also taken several steps to increase the visibility of, and employee participation in, Federal unions. OPM issued management directives in October 2021 that instructed Federal agencies to highlight collective bargaining rights for Federal employees.

Plus, there have been numerous precedent-altering decisions over the past year that may be impacted after the anticipated change from a Republican majority to a Democratic majority. On top of that, we’re still waiting for the Senate to confirm the first permanent FLRA General Counsel in more than four years.

Join us for FLRA Law Week May 10-14, where the entire world of Federal Labor relations will be discussed in depth. By then, a lot of these issues should be much clearer.

OPM Regulations

Last week, OPM issued proposed new rules on 5 CFR Parts 315, 432 and 752, as a result of Executive Order 14003. Comments are open for the public until February 3.

OPM also proposed regulations for 5 CFR part 724, the Elijah E. Cummings Federal Employee Anti-Discrimination Act of 2020, and comments on these regs are due by February 4.

Next week, FELTG’s News Flash will share the takeaways from these proposed regulations.

Closing Thoughts

2022 looks to be quite interesting with a continued pandemic, anticipated returns to the workplace, and expanded telework for hundreds of thousands of employees. As always, we’ll keep you up to date when ever anything noteworthy occurs. [email protected]

No, Asymptomatic COVID-19 is NOT a Disability

, ,

By Deborah Hopkins, January 11, 2022

Last month, EEOC released updated guidance on whether COVID-19 meets the definition of “disability” under the law. Which raises the question, is a person who has contracted COVID-19 a qualified individual with a disability for the purposes of reasonable accommodation (RA) under the Americans with Disabilities ACT (ADA) and related laws?

It depends.

COVID-19 itself is not automatically a medical condition that rises to the level of a disability because most cases are transitory and minor. According to the guidance:

A person infected with the virus causing COVID-19 who is asymptomatic or a person whose COVID-19 results in mild symptoms similar to those of the common cold or flu that resolve in a matter of weeks — with no other consequences — will not have an actual disability within the meaning of the ADA. However, depending on the specific facts involved in a particular employee’s medical condition, an individual with COVID-19 might have an actual disability…

What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws, N.2.

The guidance reminds agencies that in cases where long-haul COVID is experienced by an employee, each and every reasonable accommodation request needs an individualized analysis to determine if the employee has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity and qualifies for the RA process.

Here’s an example of COVID-19 rising to the level of a disability:

“An individual diagnosed with COVID-19 who experiences ongoing but intermittent multiple-day headaches, dizziness, brain fog, and difficulty remembering or concentrating, which the employee’s doctor attributes to the virus, is substantially limited in neurological and brain function, concentrating, and/or thinking, among other major life activities.”

And here’s an example where COVID-19 does NOT rise to the level of a disability:

“An individual who is diagnosed with COVID-19 who experiences congestion, sore throat, fever, headaches, and/or gastrointestinal discomfort, which resolve within several weeks, but experiences no further symptoms or effects, is not substantially limited in a major bodily function or other major life activity, and therefore does not have an actual disability under the ADA. This is so even though this person is subject to CDC guidance for isolation during the period of infectiousness.”

Id. at N.4.

So, even if an employee gets a severe case of COVID-19 with a high fever, perhaps even hospitalization, unless there are long-term effects or symptoms generally lasting longer than six months, then the individual does not have a disability and, therefore, is not entitled to the RA process.

The guidance also cautions agencies to be aware of situations where a COVID-19 infection, even one that does not rise to the level of a disability, may worsen underlying conditions or even create medical conditions that rise to the level of a disability:

  • An individual who had COVID-19 develops heart inflammation
  • During the course of COVID-19, an individual suffers an acute ischemic stroke
  • After an individual’s COVID-19 resolves, the individual develops diabetes attributed to the COVID-19

Id. at N.9.

We’ll be tackling all this and much more during the upcoming and updated-for-2022 Virtual Training Event Managing COVID-related EEO Challenges in the Federal Workplace on February 8. Hope you’ll make the time to join us. [email protected]

A Letter of Caution Can Equal Reprisal – or, Another Yellow Donut Case

, ,

By Deborah Hopkins, December 7, 2021

We have long taught that issuing a letter of caution, warning, expectation, concern, and the like can cause more problems for agencies than it’s worth. A supervisor can caution, warn, set an expectation, or express concern for an employee verbally, then follow it up in an email, and achieve the same purpose, while lessening the likelihood of a grievance or complaint being filed. At FELTG, we refer to these types of documents as lesser letters, or more memorably, the yellow donut.

There are too many cases where agencies have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, plus time and years of effort, defending these documents before various third parties. These documents don’t have any legal substance or definition and don’t even count as disciplinary actions. Just to get you started, see, Meaghan F. v. SSA, EEOC Appeal No. 0120152932 (November 2, 2016); Huddleson v. USPS, EEOC No. 0720090005 (2011) Massie v. DoT, 2010 MSPB 106; Ingram v. Army, Fed. Cir. No. 2015-3110 (August 10, 2015).

A few days ago, I came across a fairly recent EEO case that confirms the above: Will K. v. USPS, EEOC Appeal No. 2020000109 (Oct. 26, 2020). Among other claims raised, a USPS Operations Industrial Engineer alleged retaliation for protected activity after his supervisor discussed with him several performance concerns. The supervisor issued a Letter of Concern (LOC), which recapped the discussion. If you’re thinking that an LOC is not discrimination or reprisal and the supervisor did nothing wrong here, you’re correct in general. But it all depends on what is in the LOC. If the content includes a mention of events related to previous protected activity, the agency has a big problem.

In this case, the LOC contained a list of areas where the supervisor was concerned about the complainant’s performance, including:

  • Mentioning that the complainant “claimed work-related illness/injury for stress” [which is an employee’s right, under workers’ compensation laws];
  • References to a previous EEO settlement agreement; and
  • An indication that the complainant “claimed discrimination and harassment at work, currently being investigated.”

The AJ granted summary judgment to the agency. On appeal, the EEOC found the reference to the Complainant’s protected activity was per se retaliation. Including this type of information in a Letter of Concern is “reasonably likely to either deter Complainant or others from engaging in the EEO process. Therefore, although Complainant ultimately has not demonstrated that the LOC itself was unwarranted, the Agency is still liable for per se retaliation with regard to some of the language used in the LOC.”

With exemption requests to the COVID vaccine requirement indicating protected activity under the EEO categories of disability and religion, we want to help your agency handle these cases properly and avoid even the hint of retaliation.

So, send all your supervisors, HR and EEO staff to the January 19 webinar Stop the Spread of COVID-related Retaliation in the Federal Workplace, and we’ll show you how. [email protected]

Updated Guidance on Vaccine Refusals – Just in Time for the Holidays

, ,

By Deborah Hopkins, December 7, 2021

While the federal mandate for COVID-19 vaccination had a compliance rate of more than 97% from civilian and military personnel as of the end of November, there are still a number of personnel who have not complied with the Executive Order or requested an exemption. The deadline for compliance of civilians was November 22. Until a few days ago, the guidance from the administration had been that agencies should begin the process of counseling, then quickly disciplining, employees who refused to comply.

Perhaps, as a direct result of requests for delay by labor unions, the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force updated its guidance on discipline for vaccine refusals, encouraging agencies to counsel and educate employees on the benefits of vaccination for an “appropriate period” of time rather than the 5 days previously recommended.

In an email to agencies, OPM more closely defined that time period by advising agencies to refrain from suspensions until after the holidays. This timeline aligns more closely with the January 4 deadline the administration set for federal contractors to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19.

The Task Force guidance also included a new suggested step in the disciplinary process of noncompliant employees — the reprimand.

If the employee does not demonstrate progress toward becoming fully vaccinated through completion of a required vaccination dose or provision of required documentation by the end of the counseling and education period, agencies may issue a letter of reprimand, followed by a short suspension (generally, 14 days or less).

Reports from the end of November revealed that some agencies were already beginning the disciplinary process for employees who did not comply with the vaccine requirement. Most of those actions will likely be held in abeyance, but the email from OPM does not say agencies are prohibited from disciplining certain noncompliant employees before the end of the year.

According to a November 29 article by Government Executive, OPM’s email said “We understand that your agencies may need to act on enforcement sooner for a limited number of employees, such as where there are additional or compounding performance or workplace safety issues under consideration, but in general, consistency across government in further enforcement of the vaccine requirement after the start of the new calendar year is desired,” they wrote. “We believe this approach is the best one to achieving our goal of getting the federal workforce vaccinated.”

I’m sure this is frustrating for some of you who had already begun work on the disciplinary process and is welcome news to others who are inundated with discipline issues. Wherever you might be, and however you might feel about the vaccine requirement, FELTG thanks you for your service to the American people and promises we will keep you posted as new developments arise. [email protected]

Is Removing Fed for Lack of Vaccination a Potential Due Process Violation?

, ,

By Deborah Hopkins, November 17, 2021

Executive Order 14043 requiring all Federal employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by November 22, unless the employee qualifies for a legal exemption (disability or religious belief), it’s all but certain your agency is currently dealing with a significant number of exemption requests. And with that deadline fast approaching, agencies will soon be disciplining employees who fail to provide proof of full vaccination by that date.

OPM and the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force recently put out guidance about the progressive discipline process agencies should generally use in instances where employees refuse or fail to be vaccinated as required by EO 14043.

In a recent training class, a student brought up this question:

The guidance says that employees who fail to comply with the vaccine mandate should be counseled, and then suspended, and if they continue to refuse to be vaccinated, they should be removed. Isn’t this a due process issue since the discipline is pre-decided in these cases?

And our FELTG answer:

It’s wise to be thinking of these potential concerns before the disciplinary process begins en masse. Fortunately, if Deciding Officials are sufficiently prepared and understand their limited role in the process, due process violations can easily be avoided.

The steps of due process in agency disciplinary actions under 5 CFR § 752 are:

  1. Notice to the employee of the charge(s), the proposed penalty, and the material the agency relied upon in the proposal;
  2. Employee’s opportunity to respond, with the assistance of a representative if desired; and
  3. An impartial decision, where the decision is made based ONLY on the proposal and the employee’s response.

While the guidance says generally employees should be removed for failing to comply, the Deciding Official has the final say. And even if every DO ultimately decides to remove an employee who does not get vaccinated (and does not qualify for an exemption), as long as the DO can credibly testify that she did not make her decision until after the employee’s reply, then there is no due process violation.

Think of a few of statutory penalties that exist for Federal employees: minimum 30-day suspension for misuse of a GOV; 3-day suspension for a first offense of whistleblower reprisal under 5 USC 7515; removal for Treason. These do not raise a due process issue if the DO considers the employee’s response before making the decision about the proposed discipline. The same principle applies here.

We’ve been busy at FELTG helping agencies prepare for these processes. If there’s anything we can do to help you, please don’t hesitate to let us know. [email protected]

The Word ‘Reasonable’ is Half of Reasonable Accommodation

, ,

By Deborah Hopkins, November 17, 2021

Numerous EEOC decisions were recently published, and one case dealing with disability accommodation caught my attention. As most FELTG readers know, after receiving a request for reasonable accommodation, an agency “must make a reasonable effort to determine the appropriate accommodation” for the qualified individual with a disability. 29 C.F.R. Part 1630, app. § 1630.9.

In this case, the complainant worked as a rural mail carrier for the U.S. Postal Service. She had several medical conditions that required her to limit her walking and standing time to 1-2 hours per day, to limit the time she spent lifting to no more than 1-2 hours per day, and to limit the amount of weight she lifted to 10 pounds or less. Medical documentation supported these restrictions.

The agency modified some of her job requirements, but not all. The complainant asserted that the agency did not accommodate her fully because it:

  • Assigned her to run the “Blue Door,” which meant she had to walk to the warehouse to speak with supervisors and carriers concerning customer complaints. The total walking time averaged 4-6 hours per day, which violated her medical restrictions; and
  • Required her to deliver Express Mail, which included walking stairs and hills and carrying items in excess of 10 pounds. That also violated her medical restrictions.

The complainant reported that her assignments were violating her medical restrictions. She said rather than be accommodated, she was warned she would be sent home if she could not do the work as assigned.

She also reported that a supervisor threatened to discipline her after she made the supervisor aware the assigned work was violating her medical restrictions. In EEOC’s decision, they found the agency did not properly accommodate the complainant:

Upon review, we find that the record reflects that Complainant was denied a reasonable accommodation for her disability when Agency management required that she work the Blue Door, which required Complainant to walk in excess of her medical restrictions causing her further injury. Complainant asserted that she notified multiple management officials that she was being made to work in excess of medical conditions.

We note that the record reflects that Complainant informed multiple management officials herein that she was provided with duties in excess of her restrictions, but no action was taken to address Complainant’s concerns. In fact, management engaged in retaliatory actions by threatening to send Complainant home for exercising her right to seek out an accommodation and be allowed to work within her restrictions. Based on a review of the record, we find that Complainant established that she was denied reasonable accommodation for her disability when she was made to work in excess of her medical restrictions and subjected to reprisal for attempting to exercise her rights under the Rehabilitation Act.

Marleen G. v. USPS, EEOC No. 2020003464 (Sept. 7, 2021)

The EEOC ordered the agency to ensure the complainant was provided a reasonable accommodation that allowed her to perform her work within her medical restrictions. Remember, partially accommodating an employee without considering all restrictions, is not reasonable accommodation at all. [email protected]

Timeliness: It’s The Attempt That Counts

,

By Deborah Hopkins, October 26, 2021

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulations have long required that Federal employees (or applicants) must make a request to initiate precomplaint counseling with an EEO Counselor within 45 days of the effective date of the personnel action, event or matter alleged to be discriminatory. 29 CFR § 1614.105(a)(1). And 29 CFR § 1614.105(a)(2) states that the agency shall dismiss a complaint or a portion of a complaint that fails to comply with the applicable time limits contained in § 1614.105, unless the Agency extends the time limits in accordance with § 1614.604(c).

In a recent case, the EEOC looked at this very issue when a complainant argued her contact was timely, and the agency argued otherwise. The complainant alleged that her agency subjected her to discrimination on the basis of sex (female) when:

1. She was expelled from the Physical Security Training Program (PSTP) class at FLETC on Jan. 31, 2017; and

2. Her employment as a Law Enforcement Specialist was terminated on Feb. 8, 2017.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the agency provided the complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). She timely requested a hearing, and the agency filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint for untimely EEO Counselor contact. The complainant timely filed an Opposition to the Agency’s Motion to Dismiss.

The complainant argued that she timely initiated EEO counselor contact when she contacted the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity Division on March 21, 2017, after obtaining the phone number from the Agency’s website. She also asserted she made additional calls and left voicemails on March 23, 24, and 27, 2017 and on an unspecified date, she was contacted by the Agency’s EEO office and directed to contact the Federal Protective Service Complaints Manager. She did so on April 5, 2017, and was directed to the FLETC EEO office.

The AJ found that the alleged discriminatory acts took place on Jan. 31, 2017, the date of the complainant’s expulsion from FLETC; and Feb. 8, 2017, the date of the complainant’s removal. Therefore, the complainant had until March 25, 2017 to contact an EEO counselor. Noting that March 25, 2017, fell on a Saturday, the AJ observed that even if the time limit was extended to the next business day (Monday, March 27, 2017), the complainant’s April 5, 2017 contact with an EEO counselor was still untimely.

The AJ reasoned that the complainant was informed of the 45-day time limit in her Welcome Packet, handbook, and termination letter, and that her argument that her contact with another office was timely, was misplaced. The AJ reasoned that where a complainant is provided clear procedural instructions regarding how and when to contact the Agency’s EEO office, a failure to follow such instructions renders attempted contact insufficient.

On March 4, 2021, the Agency issued its Final Action fully implementing the AJ’s decision, procedurally dismissing the complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R § 1614.110(a). The complainant appealed to the Commission.

After reviewing the arguments from both sides, the Commission found the complainant initiated contact on March 21, 2017, when she called the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Both the EEO Counselor’s Report and the “Headquarters/FPS EEO Intake Form” identified March 21, 2017 as the date of initial contact.

The Commission explained:

As for the agency’s contention on appeal that this contact was insufficient and Complainant was required to contact the FLECTC EEO office, we disagree. We have consistently held that “a complainant may satisfy the criterion of Counselor contact by initiating [contact with] an agency official logically connected with the EEO process, even if that official is not an EEO Counselor.” Floyd v. National Guard Bureau, EEOC Request No. 05890086 (June 22, 1989). Here, by contacting the Agency’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, instead of a local, particular EEO office, we find that Complainant met her obligation in initiating the EEO process. Therefore, we find that Complainant’s contact regarding her February 8, 2017 termination … was timely.

Ellan C. v. Mayorkas, EEOC No. 2020003085 (Aug.19, 2021).

The EEOC remanded the case back to the agency, and ordered the agency to send the file to the hearings unit. Whether there was discrimination on the merits, we don’t yet know, but we now have another case that tells us EEOC will consider contact timely if the contact is logically related to the EEO complaint or process. For more on this and other EEO mistakes to avoid, join FELTG November 16 for the 60-minute webinar So You Think You Can Dismiss That EEO Claim. [email protected]

So, About that Employee Who Gets Vaccinated AFTER Being Removed

, ,

By Deborah Hopkins, October 20, 2021

In the previous article, Bill Wiley shared the logical process for agencies to use progressive discipline when a Federal employee refuses to be vaccinated and doesn’t qualify for a legal exemption.

There are a couple of other scenarios also worth addressing, as it’s likely they will occur in at least a few agencies. We’ll begin where the employee has received a notice of proposed removal for refusing to be vaccinated.

Scenario A: At the response to a proposed removal, the employee:

  1. Says she was vaccinated after the proposal, or
  2. Says she will get vaccinated if she’s permitted to keep her job.

OPM and the CHCO Council recently issued enforcement guidance that suggested the discipline should “end” if after the proposal notice the employee provides the agency with appropriate documentation that the employee is now fully vaccinated.

If the employee has only received one dose of a 2-dose vaccine, the guidance suggests the agency should “hold any disciplinary action in abeyance pending receipt of appropriate documentation that the employee has received the second dose within the designated 3- or 4-week interval depending on the vaccine received by the employee, even if this means the employee will not be fully vaccinated until after November 22, 2021.”

Under Scenario A.2, though, here’s another thought: The DO could offer the employee a Last Chance Agreement and include a requirement that she provide proof of the first vaccine dose within 5 days (any of the FDA-approved or emergency use authorized vaccines), and proof of a second dose (if applicable) within 21 (Pfizer/BioNTech) or 28 (Moderna) days, depending on the vaccine received. According to the guidance, the employee would need to provide documentation of full vaccination status within 5 weeks.

If the employee does not show proof of full vaccination by the end of that time period, the agency could then remove the employee under the LCA. As a bonus, other parameters written in to the LCA could also allow the agency to remove the employee for any misconduct or less than fully successful performance over the next two years.

Scenario B: The employee is removed, files an MSPB appeal, and gets vaccinated before his MSPB hearing.

In this scenario, the main question for the agency is whether MSPB is likely to uphold the removal since the employee’s condition has changed. Indeed, the nominees for MSPB were asked about this very scenario during their committee hearing on September 22, and demurred on answering this specific question.

There are countless MSPB cases where the Board has upheld discipline for employee insubordination, failure to follow orders, and related charges. See, e.g., Phillips v. General Services Administration, 878 F.2d 370 (Fed. Cir. 1989); Gallagher v. Department of Labor, 11 MSPR 612 (1982); Parbs v. USPS, 2007 MSPB 302 Lentine v. Treasury, 94 MSPR 676 (2003).

And of course, in light of Executive Order 14043, most of us are now familiar with a case where the Federal Circuit upheld an agency’s decision to remove two employees who refused an anthrax vaccine mandate. The Federal Circuit agreed the agency had authority to require vaccines because such action was necessary and appropriate to protect the health of the employees. Mazares, Jr. v. Navy, 302 F.3d 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The MSPB had also affirmed the removal in that case.

The answer on whether removal will be upheld may seem clear. However, remember that MSPB is allowed to mitigate an agency’s penalty if it finds the penalty is outside the bounds of reasonableness. See Payne v. USPS, 72 MSPR 646 (1996). Will the incoming MSPB find a removal is too harsh for an employee who initially refused, but eventually got vaccinated? Doubtful, but possible.

One other fun thought: There are a few cases where MSPB has reinstated a removed employee whose situation has changed, but those tend to deal with non-disciplinary medical inability to perform removals. MSPB has such cases, where an employee’s medical condition improves and  the employee is medically able to work again, as easy to resolve because it would be “manifest absurdity” not to reinstate an employee who was removed for non-disciplinary medical reasons beyond their control. In such cases the appellant must produce evidence of a) full recovery b) prior to the close of the record before the Administrative Judge. See, e.g., Street v. Army, 23 MSPR 335 (1984); Hodges v. DoJ, 2014 MSPB 54. How this would work, if it would work at all, with a two-step vaccine mandate with a government-wide date certain, nobody knows.

FELTG suggestion: Rather than force the issue to litigation, the agency could settle with the employee and offer a reprimand in lieu of a 14-day suspension, if the employee was valuable to the agency and it would benefit the agency to bring the employee back.

Join FELTG November 3 for the brand new virtual event The Exemption Proves the Rule: Reasonable Accommodation, Discipline, and the Vaccine Mandate where we discuss all these matters, and more. [email protected]