If You Leave an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Unguarded, You’re Probably Getting Fired

, ,

By Deborah Hopkins, May 20, 2020

A few weeks ago, I wrote an article about progressive discipline, and explained how a time-tested approach to discipline in the federal government provides for a “three strikes and you’re out” mentality, at least when it comes to minor workplace misconduct. There are times, however, when an employee engages in misconduct so egregious that the agency skips the first two steps in progressive discipline – typically a reprimand and a suspension – and jumps right to a removal. After all, an underlying tenet of progressive discipline is that, by disciplining an employee with increasing degrees of punishment, the employee is given the opportunity to learn from his mistakes. Castellanos v. Army, 62 MSPR 315, 324 (May 4, 1994). There are times, though, an agency determines the employee has done something so bad, he should not be given such a chance.

Let’s look at a few of those cases.

You were warned

Sometimes agencies choose to issue warnings to employees, rather than issue formal discipline. A warning is an aggravating factor that is most commonly used under the Douglas factor for clarity of notice: How clearly was the employee on notice that there was a workplace rule in place?

Take, for example, the GS-12 attorney with a discipline-free record who was removed based on two charges: Disruptive Behavior (two specifications) and Making Inappropriate Remarks (seven specifications, including referring to his supervisor’s writing as “crap,” making unseemly accusations, and using a sarcastic or intemperate tone). The agency had issued “four express warnings” and the employee still did not correct his behavior, so the agency proposed removal.  This appellant argued that he didn’t understand the warnings because the language used by the agency regarding “maintaining his composure” was confusing. Nice try, but that expression was an aggravating factor that expressed a lack of remorse. A GS-12 attorney should know what maintaining composure requires, so the MSPB upheld the removal. Pinegar v. FEC, 2007 MSPB 140.

One strike and you’re out

Some charges, by their very nature, have been recognized to be removal offenses even if there is no prior discipline. One such charge is Failure to Cooperate in an Investigation. Take a look at the following cases which all involved some version of an employee refusing to participate in agency-authorized investigations: Weston v. HUD, 724 F.2d 943 (Fed. Cir. 1983); Negron v. DoJ, 95 MSPR 561 (2004); Hamilton v. DHS, 2012 MSPB 19. Also check out Sher v. VA, 488 F.3d 489 (1st Cir. 2007) (Courts have repeatedly held that removal from employment is justified for failure to cooperate with an investigation).

Another charge where there’s not always another chance for the employee is Threat, or some version thereof (such as Making Disruptive Statements). In one such case, an appellant’s conditional threat that he would cut off his supervisor’s head warranted his removal despite a lack of prior discipline and four years of service. The agency successfully argued that such behavior affected the agency’s obligation to maintain a safe work place for its employees, thus impinging upon the efficiency of the service. Robinson v. USPS, 30 MSPR 678 (1986), aff’d., 809 F.2d 792 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (Table). A note to practitioners: If you’re going to charge Threat, you’re going to need to be sure you have evidence to support the Metz factors. Come to FELTG’s Workplace Investigations Week in Denver August 24-28 if you’d like to learn more about that.

Multiple specifications are aggravating 

Sometimes an employee engages in an act of misconduct several times, but has no disciplinary record because the agency hasn’t yet issued discipline (which, as a side note, contradicts my colleague Bill Wiley’s mantra “Discipline early, discipline often”). In those cases, the agency may choose to discipline the employee, and show the egregiousness of the conduct by listing multiple specifications, thereby justifying the penalty of a removal for a first offense of misconduct. A fairly recent case provides a perfect example of such a strategy: A first-offense removal was upheld because there were 10 specifications of continued sexual misconduct that occurred after appellant was asked to stop his inappropriate behavior. Adkins v. DoD, SF-0752-16-0294-I-1 (2016)(NP).

Harm or potential for serious harm

The Air Force has a rule: A Division 1.3 explosive must be attended at all times by its driver or a qualified representative of the motor carrier that operates it. One of our most-discussed-in-class cases at FELTG seminars involves a WG-09 Motor Vehicle Operator with 28 years of outstanding service, who left a truck with an intercontinental ballistic missile unguarded in a motel parking lot (keys in the ignition, doors unlocked) for 45 minutes, and then lied about to his supervisors when they confronted him. Though 28 years of service is a mitigating factor, and a discipline-free record is generally an asset, leaving a missile containing 66,671 pounds of explosive propellant unguarded was egregious enough to warrant a first-offense removal. Dunn v. Air Force, 96 MSPR 166 (May 24, 2004).

Remember, the goal of discipline should be to prevent future misconduct from occurring. But sometimes, employees go over the line and there’s no coming back. As long as your Douglas factors analysis supports removal, and the penalty is not grossly disproportionate to the offense, you’re free to remove an employee with a discipline-free record. For more on discipline, join FELTG for the Virtual Training Institute’s Taking Defensible Disciplinary Actions, June 1-3, or Developing & Defending Discipline, June 23-25 – from wherever you’re working. [email protected]

FELTG is Going Virtual – for the Summer, Anyway

,

By Deborah J. Hopkins, May 14, 2020

These past several weeks have been challenging for all of us. Many of you in the FELTG Nation, and some of us in the FELTG family, have lost loved ones to COVID-19. There’s a lot of uncertainty about what the future holds, as some states begin to re-open while others remain on lockdown. Will things ever return to some semblance of normal? And if so, when?

We don’t have answers to those difficult questions, but we’ve been working hard to adapt as developments have changed almost daily. So out of an abundance of caution – and to allow you time to plan and prepare for the training you still need – we’ll be holding our open enrollment classes virtually through August. Since a number of your agencies aren’t allowing travel until who knows when, we want to make sure you have an opportunity to attend the full spectrum of live, instructor-led FELTG classes.

Here’s the breakdown:

Virtual Training

From half-day spotlight sessions to week-long seminars, and everything in between, the FELTG Virtual Training Institute has classes on topics including reasonable accommodation, performance, discipline and misconduct, leadership, dealing with union issues, leave abuse, understanding employees with PTSD, conducting harassment investigations, and more. Check out the upcoming schedule, which includes favorites such as Advanced Employee Relations, Developing and Defending Discipline, EEOC Law Week, Absence, Leave Abuse & Medical Issues Week, FLRA Law Week, and more.

Webinars

Some of FELTG’s most popular webinar series – including supervisory tools, EEO refresher training and Reasonable Accommodation in the Federal Workplace – are open for registration now. Plus, we have group discounts for employees who are teleworking due to the pandemic.

Onsite Training

When it comes to onsite training, we can bring you any of our classes virtually – or we’ll be happy to have an instructor come to you, if your agency has the space to provide enough social distance for the students and the instructors to gather while following CDC guidelines.

SPECIAL EVENT: FELTG Forum

Federal Workplace 2020: Accountability, Challenges, and Trends

The pandemic is making the possibility of attending summer federal conferences less likely each day. That’s why we’re launching the virtual training event Federal Workplace 2020: Accountability, Challenges, and Trends with 14 different live instructor-led sessions, July 27-31. You can attend as many sessions as you want, from one to all, or anything in between. Earn 8 EEO refresher hours. Earn CLE and Ethics credits. Learn the latest about how to handle the challenges facing federal agencies in 2020.

Because this is a virtual forum, you can attend from wherever you’re working – home or agency office, with no need to get on a plane. Check out the agenda below.

See below for the upcoming schedule of events, or visit www.feltg.com/events to see all the options on the calendar, by date.

We’ll continue to adjust our plans and approach as necessary, until this disease is under control, until it’s eradicated, or until there’s a vaccine. In the meantime, we hope you and your loved ones stay safe and healthy.

Take care,

Deb

Deborah J. Hopkins, FELTG President

Once Again, EEOC Discusses the Role of Agency Defense Counsel – But This Time, No Sanctions Involved

,

By Deborah Hopkins, May 5, 2020

One of the most intensely debated topics in the EEO realm for years, has been the proper role of agency defense counsel in agency EEO investigations. Indeed, we’ve written articles in this newsletter about the topic. One of the more recent, hotly discussed cases was the July 2018 issuance of Josefina L. v. SSA, EEOC Appeal No. 0120161760. In this case, the Commission determined “… that Agency counsel impermissibly interfered with the investigation … We determine that OGC’s actions undermined the integrity of the EEO process by eroding the necessary separation of the investigative process from the Agency’s defensive functions.”

Despite all the discussion about Josefina L., we didn’t really learn anything new or significant from the case. The Commission has previously held that an agency representative “should not have a role in shaping the testimony of the witnesses or the evidence gathered by the EEO Investigator.” See Tammy S. v. Dep’t of Defense, EEOC Appeal No. 0120084008 (June 6, 2014), recon. denied, EEOC Request No. 0520140438 (June 4, 2015). Josefina L. brought the debate to the front burner, yet again, and the SSA was slapped with a mild sanction, despite EEOC’s chiding in the case.

One of the problems we’ve had with understanding the EEOC’s position over the years is the weak sanctions they’ve issued when they found agency defense counsel to have crossed the line. Time and again, they issued decisions where the words seemed to say “I’m really mad,” and the actions seemed to say “But I’m not really that mad.”

Interference in the EEO process is one thing – and it’s a problem. But there is no law or regulation that specifically prohibits every single agency attorney from providing advice to supervisors during EEO proceedings, so long as the involvement does not impact the “impartial processing” of the case. Management Directive 110, Chapter 1, Section IV.

So where is the line between permissible and impermissible involvement? Practitioners for years have begged the Commission: PLEASE let us know, definitively, where the bright line can be located.

While the EEOC still hasn’t given us a bright line, the answer to the level of involvement permissible recently got a little bit closer to definitive in a recent case:

[W]e expressly hold that MD-110 permits agency defense counsel to participate in the pre-complaint and investigative stages under clearly defined and controlled conditions that will carry out the Agency Head’s obligation to defend the Agency against legal challenges while avoiding inappropriate interference with the activities of the EEO Office. This means that agency defense counsel may assist agency management officials and witnesses in the preparation of their affidavits during the investigative stage. However, agency defense counsel may not instruct officials to make statements that are untrue or make changes to any affidavit without the affiant’s approval of such changes. [bold added]

Annalee D. v. GSA, EEOC Request No. 2019000778; App. No. 0120170991 (November 27, 2019).

This is yuuuuuuuge. For the past several years, the Commission has sanctioned agencies whose counsel were involved in almost any way. You’d find the occasional case that went the other way, but again the problem was no bright line. Sometimes interference was okay, as long as it wasn’t too much interference; other times, it wasn’t okay.

In the Annalee D. case, the EEOC had originally sanctioned the agency simply because the agency defense counsel was involved – without ever looking at the merits of the involvement. But to its credit, EEOC reversed itself, after the agency requested reconsideration: “In the underlying appellate decision, we found impermissible interference solely on the grounds that agency defense counsel provided assistance to management officials during the investigative stage and not because the provided assistance actually interfered with the EEO Office’s investigative process.”

Look at some of the other language from this case:

  • “Our decision in [Annalee D.] appears to set forth an absolute rule that prohibits agency defense counsel from participating in the pre-hearing stages of equal employment opportunity matters…There is no ‘bright line’ regarding the extent to which agency defense counsel may be involved during the pre-hearing stages of the EEO process. Rather, the issue of utmost concern to the Commission is whether the actions of agency defense counsel improperly interfered with or negatively influenced the EEO process.”
  • “[N]othing contained in MD-110 explicitly prohibits agency defense counsel from representing an agency manager during the counseling stage or bans agency defense counsel during the investigative stage from assisting an agency manager in preparing his or her affidavit or acting as a representative under the appropriate circumstances.”
  • “In recognizing the disparate yet vital responsibilities of the EEO Office and agency defense counsel, MD-110 recognizes that these entities will inevitably interact with each other. MD-110 sets out the parameters for these interactions and seeks to ensure that neither entity inappropriately interferes with the functions of the other.”

This is the best guidance we’ve seen from the Commission on the topic to date – well, it’s good if you’re on the agency side, anyway. And it clarifies the extent to which an agency can support a supervisor who has been accused of discrimination, and needs help understanding the process. Come to our virtual training class Conducting Effective Harassment Investigations May 18-20, or to EEOC Law Week in Washington, DC, in August (if the country is open by then) or September if you want to learn more about this topic, plus a whole lot more. [email protected]

How Do You Address Performance Failures During Emergency Telework?

, ,

By Deborah Hopkins, April 15, 2020

Today as you read this, over a million federal employees are teleworking because of the COVID-19 emergency. Under OPM regulations, during an emergency an agency may assign any work considered necessary without regard to the employee’s grade or title, including assignments that an employee is given while teleworking.

We’ve seen this happen in recent weeks as agencies have issued evacuation orders and sent employees home on telework, even if the employees haven’t previously been cleared to work from home. In fact, a number of federal employees are currently at home, getting paid with nothing to do because they don’t have a computer and, therefore, have no way to telework – but they’re stuck at home because it’s not safe to come to work in virus-stricken areas. If one thing is sure, it’s an unprecedented time in the federal government, the country, and the world.

So, back to that OPM stuff. An agency can assign work the employee doesn’t normally do, but only if the agency knows the employee has the necessary knowledge and skills to perform the assigned work. Let’s use me as an example. I’m an attorney. Maybe while I’m working from home you assign me to attend virtual training classes, or to proofread some documents. That’s just fine. But you can’t assign me to do peer review on a scientist’s research, because I have no clue how to do that.

The assignment of alternative performance requirements raises an important question, though: How can an agency hold an employee accountable for performance while they are on emergency telework, if the performance failure is not covered by a critical element in the employee’s performance plan?

Since the Civil Service Reform Act was implemented in 1979, the law and regulations have set out clear requirements on how federal employees should be held accountable for poor performance. And if you look at 5 CFR 432, you’ll see that an agency can’t take a performance-based action unless the employee performs unacceptably in a critical element, after being given an opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance.

So what’s an agency to do if it assigns a performance-related task to an employee who is on emergency telework for COVID-19, and the employee doesn’t complete the task, or performs the task poorly? In other words, using me as your hypothetical employee, what can you do if I don’t attend the virtual training or don’t review the documents, if I don’t have a critical element related to either of those things?

Does the agency have to accept poor, or even no, work performance? I think not.

The agency can’t hold an employee accountable under the performance procedures if the assignment doesn’t fit into a critical element, so the agency is now left with the option to take a 5 CFR 752 action, also known as an adverse action, against the employee. This rarely-used option has been permissible under the law for 40 years.

That said, there are a few drawbacks to handling a “performance” problem as an adverse action:

    • The burden of proof is higher (preponderance of the evidence) to take a misconduct-based action, than it is to take a performance-based action (substantial evidence). The exception is the employees covered under the new VA law, where the burden of proof is substantial for misconduct and performance actions.
    • If the failure to perform doesn’t cause significant harm, the agency may need to issue multiple disciplinary actions via progressive discipline, before it can remove the employee for the failures.
    • The agency would be required to justify its penalty in any discipline it issued beyond a reprimand.

So here’s what this situation would look like, if I’m your hypothetical employee:

You: Deb, I’m registering you to attend the three-day FELTG virtual training April 21-23, so you can earn your CLE credits and learn about legal updates while you’re teleworking. You need to attend all sessions.

Deb: Is properly registered for the sessions but doesn’t attend because she is binge-watching Veep.

You: [It’s April 24] Deb, here’s your reprimand for failure to follow supervisory instructions. Now, I need you to review this document, edit it, and have it returned to me by 3:00 p.m. on April 28.

Deb: [It’s April 29] Sorry, I didn’t get a chance to review that document yet. I’ve been busy on other things.

You: Deb, here’s your proposed 3-day suspension (or reprimand in lieu of suspension, if you prefer) for failure to follow supervisory instructions.

Does this make sense? The law doesn’t require an agency to pay an employee to sit at home and do nothing during a pandemic, if there’s work the agency can assign the employee. But if the work doesn’t relate to a critical element, the agency must use the misconduct procedures to hold the employee accountable. Interesting times, aren’t they? [email protected]

Due Process Challenges in a COVID-19 World

,

By Deborah Hopkins, April 7, 2020

When it comes to due process in federal sector employment law, the steps are as easy as 1-2-3. Let’s take a hypothetical where the employee has violated agency purchase card restrictions, and the agency is ready to propose his removal. Here are the three steps that provide Constitutional due process to the employee – mandatory steps if he is a career Title 5 or Title 42 employee and no longer a probationer:

  1. The agency provides the employee with a proposal notice containing the proposed action (removal), the charge (misuse of an agency purchase card), the penalty justification (Douglas factors worksheet), and boilerplate rights, plus any materials relied upon.
  2. The employee is given a minimum of seven days to respond orally or in writing, and to be represented.
  3. The Deciding Official issues an impartial decision based only on the information in the proposal, and the employee’s response.

This is all fairly straightforward, though by no means do all agencies do it perfectly. But now that we are living in a COVID-19 world, there are some new questions that agencies are facing as it relates to providing due process. Let’s take a look.

The employee is working from home and we usually hand-deliver proposal notices, but the employee is on telework. What are our options?

In this case you have two options:

    • You can hand-deliver the proposal to the employee at his home. This is currently not advised, as many of us are under social distancing and stay-at home orders. I suppose if you were pulled over by the police on your way to the employee’s house you’d have a pretty good argument that this delivery is mission-essential.

Here is the better option:

    • Mail the letter to the employee, email it to the employee, or both. When an employee is teleworking, there’s a presumption of receipt of an email sent by a supervisor. What’s more, the folks in IT can check and see exactly when the employee opened the email. And if you think emailing proposed discipline is frowned upon by MSPB, then check out Korb v. MSPB, MB-1221-14-0002-W-1 (March 2, 2016) (ID), where an MSPB supervisor emailed a proposed adverse action to an employee. You can also send the letter via U.S. mail, where there is a presumption of receipt after 5 days.

Watch the timelines here, because the clock on the notice and response period starts on the day the employee receives the notice. If you only use the mail, you’ll be waiting a few extra days to start the notice period.

The employee needs access to files at the agency in order to prepare his response, and the building is closed because of COVID-19. Do we have to wait until the building re-opens to issue the proposal?

No, you do not need to delay your action. At this point in the process, the employee is not entitled to any agency files to prepare his response – unless your union contract says otherwise. Once the removal is issued and the employee files an appeal, he can request relevant files through discovery and the agency must produce the information. At the proposal stage, however, there is no entitlement. Don’t take my word for it; check out Kinsey v. USPS, 12 MSPR 503 (1982), a foundational Board case that settled this question in the early days of the Civil Service Reform Act.

The employee has requested an in-person response but the Deciding Official is teleworking and does not want to risk being exposed to the virus. Does the agency have to grant the onsite response meeting?

Again, the answer is no. The employee is entitled to an oral response, not a face-to-face response. Telephone or video conferencing are routinely used for the oral response, even when a pandemic is not consuming the globe. As long as the deciding official is able to hear the employee’s response, the legal requirement in 5 USC § 7503 has been met.

The Deciding Official receives an email from the employee’s former supervisor, encouraging the DO to remove the employee. Must the Deciding Official tell the employee about this email?

If the DO considers the information in the email at all in making her decision, then the employee is entitled to notice of this information, commonly known as a Ward letter. The agency would then need to give the employee the statutory minimum of seven days to respond to the email before the DO could implement her decision.

If the DO does not notify the employee of this new information, and the employee or judge finds out, the agency will automatically lose the case on a due process procedural violation – even if the agency has 50 witnesses, a public confession, and a video recording of the entire act of misconduct. Regardless of the evidence, due process violations are losers for the agency every single time.

In fact, most agencies lose cases because of due process violations, rather than on evidence. It’s a tricky area so for that reason, we invite you to join us next week on April 16 for a 60-minute webinar Due Process Violations: How One Mistake Could Cost You the Case. Until then, be safe and take care. [email protected]

Do You Believe These Myths About Leave?

, ,

By Deborah Hopkins, March 19, 2020

If you are part of the FELTG Nation, you probably already know that federal employees have significant rights to various types of leave. In fact, starting this fall, most will receive even more leave entitlements, in the form of paid family leave. That said, leave is not always an entitlement. Today I want to discuss some of the myths surrounding federal employee leave.

Myth: Employees always have the right to dictate their leave status if they have leave on the books.

Here’s the scenario: Your employee doesn’t come in to work one day when she’s scheduled, and doesn’t request leave or otherwise notify the supervisor she won’t be in. The next day, she comes in and tells the supervisor to put her on annual leave for yesterday. She has 32 hours of annual leave on the books. Must the supervisor grant the annual leave?

No. Annual leave is not an entitlement, and the supervisor may deny the request so long as the denial is reasonable. Is it reasonable to deny a leave request after the fact, when there is no entitlement, and the employee did not follow proper leave procedures? You bet. The employee who doesn’t come to work when scheduled is not on approved annual leave, she is AWOL.

In addition, there’s also a potential second disciplinary charge for failing to follow leave procedures. If you need good aggravating language, look no further than Yartzoff v. EPA, 38 MSPR 403 (1988). This case discusses how an agency is “doubly burdened” by an unscheduled absence; once for the loss of the employee’s services, and again for the loss of the opportunity to plan for the absence.

We’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again: Federal employees do not have the legal right to place themselves on leave. There is a three-step procedure that must be followed according to the law regardless of the type of leave requested, and if you’re not doing things this way, you are needlessly making your life more difficult.

  1. Employee submits a leave request according to agency procedures
  2. Supervisor considers the request
  3. Supervisor either grants or denies the request.
    • Sometimes the supervisor must grant the leave; other times it’s discretionary.

That’s the law.

Myth: If an employee is at work, she can’t be charged AWOL.

I think we all know that just because someone is at work, doesn’t mean she is actually working. Since the beginning of time – or at least since the beginning of the Civil Service Reform Act – employees who are on the clock but not doing government-related-work can be charged AWOL, or unauthorized absence if that’s what your agency calls it. A few cases to get you started:

  • An agency may charge an employee with AWOL for conducting personal business while on duty. Mitchell v. DoD, 22 MSPR 271 (1984)
  • Sleeping on the job; wasting time. Golden v. USPS, 60 MSPR 268, 273 (1994)
  • If an employee is insubordinate and is told to leave the work site until he agrees to follow directives, he is not on approved leave; he is AWOL. Lewis v. Bureau of Engraving and Printing, 29 MSPR 447 (1985).

Myth: An employee may only use sick leave if he, or a close family member, is incapacitated for duty.

Not long ago, I had a federal employee in my class whose sister had recently died. The employee requested sick leave to attend the funeral, and her supervisor denied the leave request. Well, that denial was absolutely wrong.

Under 5 CFR § 630.401(a)(4), an employee is entitled to use up to 104 hours (13 days) of sick leave each leave year for family care and bereavement, which includes making funeral arrangements or attending the funeral of a family member. The definition of family member in these instances covers a wide range including spouse; parents; parents-in-law; children; brothers; sisters; grandparents; grandchildren; step parents; step children; foster parents; foster children; guardianship relationships; same sex and opposite sex domestic partners; and spouses or domestic partners of the aforementioned, as applicable. Check out OPM’s full list of Definitions Related to Family Member and Immediate Relative for Leave Purposes.

The supervisor in this case could have legally denied the sick leave request only if the relative did not meet the definition of family member, if the employee had already used 104 hours of sick leave on family-related care that leave year, or if the employee did not have accrued sick leave. Otherwise, the leave was an entitlement and should have been granted.

There are also a few other areas where an employee may not be sick but has an entitlement to sick leave (e.g., routine dentist appointment), so you’ll want to be sure to read the regs if you’re not familiar with those.

Myth: The agency may dictate the employee’s pay status during FMLA.

A lot of supervisors miss this one, but the employee who is on FMLA gets to decide if the time off will be recorded as sick leave, annual leave, LWOP, or any combination of the three. Yes, that means an employee can
use LWOP during FMLA and keep all his annual leave and sick leave during FMLA, and save it for a rainy day. The agency has no choice in the matter, so don’t even try to force an employee to use accrued leave. The law is on the employee’s side.

If you like these leave topics, we have an entire training week on Absence, Leave Abuse and Medical Issues in Washington, DC, starting March 30 – or if you’d prefer to wait a few months to travel, September registration is also open. If you find this information helpful, you’re welcome to join us. We’d love to see you there.  [email protected]

More on Probationers: FELTG Answers Your Follow-Up Questions

, ,

By Deborah Hopkins, March 19, 2020

In a recent newsletter, I discussed the differences between initial appointment probationary periods and supervisory probationary periods. As a result of this discussion, FELTG received some follow-up questions, including requests for explanation of more complicated scenarios involving probationary periods. So here goes.

What happens if the agency wants to remove a probationary employee for pre-employment reasons?

If a probationer in the competitive service is removed for reasons occurring after they begin work, such as a performance or conduct issue, they have no MSPB appeal rights and no right to due process, with limited exceptions. However, if a probationer is being removed for a condition that arose before they started their job at a federal agency (for example, they lied on their job application), then they are entitled to a three-step procedure that mimics due process and if this process is not followed they can appeal to MSPB that the procedural requirements were not met:

  1. Notice for the reasons why the agency is proposing the action;
  2. A reasonable amount of time to file a written response; and
  3. A written decision at the earliest practicable date, with notice of a right to appeal to MSPB.

See 5 CFR § 315.805.

Note: This three-step process does not follow the same 30-day notice timeline as a proposed removal actions for a fully vested career employee. These procedures are generally abbreviated by agency policy to be a few days at most.

Does a reinstated employee have to serve a new probationary period?

When an agency appoints an individual using reinstatement authority, the individual does not have to serve a probationary period if during any prior service that forms the basis for the reinstatement, the individual successfully completed probation. 5 CFR 315.401, 801(a); Aviles-Wynkoop v. DoD, DC-315H-16-0327-I-1 (2016)(NP).

How are temporary appointments related to probationary status?

For many years, individuals employed in a series of temporary appointments accrued MSPB appeal rights even with a few days break in service between appointments. The reason for this was the theory of a Continuous Employment Contract. See Roden v. TVA, 25 MSPR 363 (1984).

A few years ago, though, MSPB changed its stance and said in order to gain MSPB appeal rights, temporary employees must have more than a year of continuous, uninterrupted employment with no break in service – not even a day or two. Winns v. USPS, 2017 MSPB 1. See also Bough v. DoI, Fed. Cir. 2018-1477, 1478 (April 5, 2019). This “current, continuous standard” for temporary employees allows them to count their work toward completion of probation when the prior service:

  • Is in the same agency,
  • Is in the same line of work (determined by the employee’s actual duties and responsibilities); and is
  • Continuous (without a service break).

5 CFR 315.802(b)

In the excepted service, prior intervals of permanent service that are separated at the time of removal by a period of temporary service do not count toward the two-year requirement, even if there is no break in service when one considers both temporary and permanent positions. Roy v. MSPB and DoJ, 672 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (employee who had 8 years permanent employment and 1.5 years permanent employment separated by an 18-month temporary appointment did not have MSPB appeal rights).

What if an employee voluntarily accepts a job with a probationary period?

There are some positions in the federal government that may require a probationary or trial period regardless of the employee’s employment history with the government. Employees have appeal rights, regardless of whether they are serving a probationary/trial period, if they have:

  • Current continuous employment (as defined above) of:
    • One year in the competitive service (excluding service in temporary positions with a duration of two years or less), or
    • Two years in the excepted service, and
    • For veterans: one year in either service.

Van Wersch v. HHS, 197 F.3d 1144 (Fed. Cir. 1999), Claiborne v. VA, 2012 MSPB 101 (August 30, 2012). 

This means that an employee in the competitive service who has completed a year of current, continuous service (not a temporary appointment) has full procedural and appeal rights even if that individual is serving a probationary period. 5 USC 7511(a)(1)(A). If the individual is in the excepted service then the full appeal rights vest after two years even if that individual is serving a probationary period. 5 USC 7511(a)(1)(C). A person eligible for veterans preference will receive full procedural and appeal rights after one year of “current continuous service in the same or similar positions” whether the veteran is in the competitive or excepted service. 5 USC 7511(a)(1)(B).

In summary, employees have two separate and distinct avenues to appeal rights:

  • Employees who have completed a probationary period have appeal rights.
  • Employees who have a year of current service prior to the termination have appeal rights.

A special note for DOD, the probationary period is two years instead of just one, so some of your timelines may have to be modified accordingly. [email protected]

Using Progressive Discipline: How Many Strikes Before You’re Out?

,

By Deborah Hopkins, March 10, 2020

I spend most of my days talking about discipline. It’s a topic that I find very interesting, as do a lot of you in the FELTG Nation. In our field, of course there are a lot of boring discipline cases about the guy who is late to work or doesn’t follow an SOP and is disciplined accordingly. There are also attention-grabbing cases about employees who view pornography on government computers, urinate in mop closets, take food off inspection lines to do vulgar things, destroy government property, and on and on. If you work in federal employment law, you never have to make anything up.

One of the topics worth focusing on (and hey, there’s a webinar about this next Thursday) is progressive discipline for employees who are multiple misconduct offenders. While reprimands usually correct misbehavior, in 15-20% of cases an employee re-offends with a subsequent act of misconduct. What’s more, in 2018 the Government Accountability Office issued a report that said 25% of the 10,000-12,000 people suspended in the federal government every year have been suspended at least once previously.

Misconduct is loosely defined as the violation of a workplace rule. Discipline for misconduct is a way to correct bad behavior, or to teach the employee a lesson. Some agencies even discipline to send a warning message to other employees in order to deter future misconduct. The underlying principle in determining the appropriate level of discipline is that the penalty is proportionate to the offense. Agencies determine what’s appropriate with the guidance of the Douglas factors.

But some employees just don’t (or won’t) learn their lesson even after being disciplined, and that’s where things typically escalate. Enter progressive discipline. The general principle is “Three Strikes and You’re Out” when it comes to breaking minor rules and being disciplined in the federal workplace. This has been a widely accepted approach for longer than most of us have been alive; indeed, it pre-dates the Civil Service Reform Act and was standard in cases when we still had the Civil Service Commission. Three strikes is not a mandatory requirement, of course. Some supervisors allow employees four, five, or six strikes – or even more.

However, if an agency chooses to rely on past discipline in the Douglas factors analysis, any past, unexpired discipline at all is an aggravating factor in determining the appropriate penalty. In 2018 President Trump issued Executive Order 13839 that clarified prior misconduct for any charged offense – not just the current offense – could be relied upon in using progressive discipline. For example, a previous Reprimand for disrespectful conduct would be just as aggravating when selecting discipline for the subsequent misconduct of AWOL, as would be a prior Reprimand for AWOL. This been the law for decades, but had been misunderstood in recent years.

Take a look at a few cases where agencies used progressive discipline, and MSPB upheld the removals:

  • Grubb v. DOI, 96 MSPR 361 (2004): Removal was warranted for two charges – making repeated unfounded and unsubstantiated allegations concerning her co-workers’ and supervisors’ alleged misconduct and failure to follow her supervisor’s instructions in violation of a direct order – because the appellant had received four suspensions within a two-year period. [Can I just mention that I cringe at how those charges are drafted…but that’s another article.]
  • Blank v. Army, 85 MSPR 443 (2000): A reprimand and two suspensions preceded a removal action, and the MSPB upheld the removal because the past discipline was an aggravating factor.
  • Alaniz v. USPS, 100 MSPR 105 (2005): In one year alone, the appellant received four suspensions, so a fifth offense in the same year warranted removal.

I think most FELTG readers would agree that these cases show egregious examples of repeated misconduct. I would even hazard a guess that removal could have been upheld a couple of suspensions sooner, had the agencies above chosen to go that route. However, they chose not to and under the law that is their right.

Believe it or not, though, removal is appropriate in cases of “minor misconduct” where employees have been disciplined in the past and continue to violate workplace rules. See Ferguson v. USPS, 19 MSPR 52 (1984) (When past disciplinary records indicate unreliability and a failure to comply with agency regulations, the penalty of removal does not exceed the limits of reasonableness even for cases involving minor misconduct such as “being out of the facility while on the clock without permission.”) Foundational MSPB case law tells us that the agency need not impose the minimum penalty possible so long as the penalty imposed is reasonable. Lewis v. Bureau of Engraving and Printing, 29 MSPR 447 (1985).

Of course, because progressive discipline is not mandatory, sometimes agencies employ the “One Strike and You’re Out” approach. Next month, we’ll look at cases where progressive discipline was not used, because it wasn’t necessary. See you then, if not before. [email protected]

You Can’t Be Halfway Pregnant, and Informal Discipline is Not a Thing

, , ,

By Deborah Hopkins and William Wiley, February 19, 2020

Have you ever heard this saying: You can’t be halfway pregnant   — either you are, or you aren’t? There are a number of things in life that are all or nothing, with no halfway. Either it is, or it isn’t.

One of those things is discipline. An action taken against an employee who has committed misconduct in the federal workplace is either discipline, or it isn’t. There’s no halfway. I can’t tell you how many agency policies we have seen – yes, even recently — that list the items that constitute Formal Discipline, but then have other sections highlighted as “Informal Discipline” or “Other Discipline” or, perhaps most confusingly, just Discipline. Other policies list the steps of Progressive Discipline and include items such as Counseling and Oral Reprimands. That’s another mistake and isn’t legally accurate.

Here’s what we know about the requirements for an action to be considered discipline in the federal workplace, as laid out in Bolling v. Air Force, 9 MSPR 335 (Dec. 21, 1981):

Discipline must be in writing. If a supervisor yells and screams at an employee, calls the employee all kinds of nasty names , throws a chair, slams a door, threatens to fire the employee, or anything else along those lines, that supervisor might feel like she is disciplining the employee, and indeed, the employee may even feel disciplined from the sting of those words. However, under the law, the employee has not been disciplined. Those words and gestures matter not one iota under the law. If it isn’t in writing, it isn’t discipline. (It’s definitely bad management, but we’ll save that conversation for another article.)

Discipline must be grievable. As explained in Bolling, for an action to count as discipline, the employee must be “given an opportunity to dispute the action by having it reviewed, on merits, by an authority different from the one that took the action.” Just because an item is in writing, doesn’t make it grievable. An agency needs to look to its administrative grievance procedure or its union contract to see what types of written documents are grievable. Typically, items such as counseling memos, emails, letters of caution, or written expectations, do not meet these criteria and, therefore, are excluded from the definition of discipline.

The action must be made a matter of record. This requirement essentially means that there is official agency paperwork involved; the item belongs in the employee’s OPF. A lot of supervisors put notes and memos into the OPF, but the only things that truly belong there, for the purposes of counting as discipline, have an SF-50 attached. A reprimand does not have an SF-50 because it is not a pay action. However, it is commonly stored in the OPF in the temporary section (for those who remember OPFs before they were electronic, on the left side of the folder), where it does not remain in the file past its expiration date. A reprimand is considered discipline until its expiration date, because it meets all the legal requirements of discipline: It is written, grievable, and a matter of record.

All this brings us back to the confusion around “informal discipline,” or whatever your agency calls it. There is no accepted definition for informal discipline, and it does you more harm than help if you try to draw a distinction.

If a supervisor mistakenly issues three types of informal discipline against an employee, and on the fourth offense decides that it’s time for a removal under progressive discipline, she is going to be upset when she realizes the informal procedures she followed in her agency’s policy have carried exactly ZERO legal weight for the purposes of progressive discipline. At the very most, she might have some evidence for the Douglas factor on notice, but that’s about it. Here’s why this is important:

Efficiency: As we have taught in our FELTG seminars since the cooling of the Earth, the best practice is to do as little as required by law when dealing with a problem employee. The more you do, the longer it takes, the more you give the employee to grieve and complain about, and the greater your chances of making a mistake. If you create a category of actions unrecognized by law or otherwise unnecessary, you make it more difficult to efficiently correct behavior.

Confusion: If you create something called “informal discipline,” you confuse the poor front-line supervisor. When should the supervisor engage in informal discipline? Is there a requirement to use informal discipline before he uses the real thing? How is the employee supposed to view the administration of an informal disciplinary action? Most importantly, what is the judge or the arbitrator supposed to do with an informal discipline policy? Confusion does you no good when trying to manage workplace behavior.

Litigation: MSPB administrative judges closely review the removal of employees from federal service. If a judge discovers that you have mistakenly considered an act of “informal discipline” as a step in progressive discipline, then you stand a big fat chance of the removal being mitigated or even set aside on appeal. Litigation is hard. Don’t create the potential for mistakes that are unnecessary.

If you’re stuck with one of these policies and aren’t in a position to change it, don’t sweat it. Most of these policies do not require a supervisor to start with the informal before going the disciplinary route, so a supervisor should be free, to go right to the reprimand and skip the Letter of Whatever. [email protected]

Takeaways from MSPB’s FY 2019 Annual Report: Agencies Continue to Win Appeals, but Don’t Litigate Very Many Cases

, ,

By Deborah Hopkins, February 19, 2020

A couple of weeks ago, MSPB issued its Annual Report for FY 2019. This report is similar to a “State of the MSPB” document, which highlights the priorities, strategies, and numbers from the previous fiscal year. Because we have no sitting members of the MSPB for the first time in history – and it’s been almost a year since the Board has been vacant – the report is more abbreviated than it has been in years past. But there’s still some interesting information we at FELTG want to share with you, in case you haven’t had a chance to look at the report yet.

As of the end of FY 2019, MSPB had 2,378 Petitions for Review (PFRs) pending at HQ. That was the end of September, of course. As of last week, MSPB’s website showed more than 2,600 pending PFRs. The backlog has been growing for more than three years and will continue to grow until the Senate votes to confirm the nominees, who have been patiently waiting – two of the three for nearly two years.

The Administrative Judges (AJs) in the regional and field offices continue to hold hearings and review cases. Last FY, they issued 5,112 decisions. Of those, 4,893 were initial appeals, 190 were addendum cases, and 29 were stay requests. Let’s look at a further breakdown of these numbers:

  • 2,092 of the AJ decisions involved adverse actions.
  • 388 cases were probationer removals. (As most FELTG readers know, probationers have limited Board appeal rights. If you didn’t know that, attend MSPB Law Week in March and we’ll tell you all about it.)
  • 113 cases involved performance-related removals or demotions.
  • 490 were Individual Right of Action appeals – with most of those, if not all, undoubtedly being appeals of alleged whistleblower reprisal.
  • 61 appeals were related to suitability.
  • USERRA and VEOA appeals combined for 213 appeals.

Another interesting statistic involves settlement. In years past, around 60 percent of MSPB appeals government-wide were settled before they ever went to hearing. Of course, some agencies tend to settle more often, and others less frequently, but overall the majority of cases still settled. I often get asked what that looks like, and why agencies settle cases after the disciplinary action has already been decided. Well, it costs the government time and money to litigate a case in front of an MSPB AJ, and if the agency can offer the employee something (usually a sum of money) in order to resolve the appeal today, then it often will.

This decision to settle usually comes from someone further up the chain of command, and in many cases includes the employee’s agreement that they won’t apply for another job at the agency again. Whether you like it or not, that’s how the system works.

Well, last year we had the lowest number of post-appeal settlements I can ever recall seeing: only 47 percent of cases settled after the appeal was filed to MSPB. A likely reason for this is Executive Order 13839, which went into effect in 2018 and removed the agency’s authority to take discipline out of an employee’s official record. A clean record is often the determining factor in getting an employee to agree to withdraw an appeal and go away, so it’s not surprising to see this number decrease so significantly.

Of the 915 appeals that went to hearing (in other words, they weren’t settled, withdrawn, dismissed, or otherwise disposed of) and were adjudicated on the merits, agency actions were upheld 85% of the time — a 2% increase from FY2018. Only 2% of agency actions were mitigated and about 12% were overturned.

So, who went to hearing the most? By the numbers, the VA far and away adjudicated the most MSPB appeals (161), more than doubling the number of its closest followers, Army and DHS. Not far off the podium were DOD, USPS, Navy, and Air Force, followed by  DoJ, USDA and Treasury. Considering the size of the top three agencies, this is not entirely surprising as one could assume the number of hearings is related to the size of the workforce. However, several decent-sized Departments only adjudicated appeals in the single or low-double digits:

  • Department of Health and Human Services: 15 appeals; 79,000 employees
  • Department of Transportation: 15 appeals, 58,000 employees
  • Department of Commerce: 14 appeals; 46,000 employees
  • Department of the Interior: 12 appeals; 70,000 employees
  • Department of Labor: 4 appeals; 17,000 employees
  • Department of Energy: 3 appeals; 14,000 civilian employees
  • Department of Housing and Urban Development: 3 appeals; 8,000 employees

The fact that some agencies adjudicated so few appeals is not necessarily directly related to the number of personnel actions taken. A number of Departments employ groups of people who do not fall under MSPB jurisdiction – for example, Department of Energy employs more than 100,000 contractors who do not have MSPB appeal rights. Some agencies have very high settlement rates, and other agencies see very few employees file an appeal of a removal. That said, it is true that some agencies just don’t take action against most employees who engage in misconduct or perform at an unacceptable level. I share these numbers not to point fingers, because these numbers standing alone don’t tell us the complete story, but as a way of starting the conversation about accountability in the federal government.

There’s lots more in the report including a statement on the lack of a quorum (or any members at all) and summaries of important Federal Circuit decisions. [email protected]