The Leave Mistakes that Supervisors Make

, ,

By Deborah Hopkins, September 19, 2018

Oh, leave. It’s a topic that intersects with everything we do here at FELTG: conduct, performance, EEO, union issues, supervisor skills, and on and on. If you get it right, it’s easy; getting it wrong can cause big problems, legal and otherwise. So what I’ve done for you today is compile some of the more common leave “mistakes” that supervisors and advisors make when dealing with employee leave issues.

But, first things first. Let’s set out a few ground rules. Employee leave entitlements depend on the category of leave involved and can be inconsistent and confusing. Only certain types of leave are an entitlement; others are discretionary. Federal employees have significant rights, but in the discretionary areas (usually annual leave and leave without pay) the supervisor’s judgment about the need for work may be a determining factor on whether the supervisor approves the leave request.

Speaking of leave requests, employees DO NOT place themselves on leave. There is a three-step procedure that MUST be followed according to the law, yet many supervisors don’t enforce it. Ready for it?

  1. Employee requests leave
  2. Supervisor considers request
  3. Supervisor grants or denies request

And that’s it. So, onto the mistakes.

Mistake: Not checking local policy when considering leave requests. While certain areas of leave are discretionary under federal law, agency leave policies may provide more specificity. For example, there is not entitlement to annual leave (even though it is accrued) or LWOP (except for a few circumstances), but your agency’s policy or collective bargaining agreement (CBA) might dictate how those requests should be handled. Always check local policy if you’re not sure. Your L/ER folks or OGC should know those details by heart.

Mistake: Denying leave that’s an entitlement. Some categories of leave are an entitlement IF the employee meets the requirements. This means you have to say yes to a leave request even if it inconveniences the agency to do so. For example, let’s say an employee requests sick leave because his grandmother died, and he has to attend the funeral. That’s an entitlement. The employee gets the sick leave for the reasonable time they need to attend the funeral. Another example: An employee requests 12 weeks (480 hours) of FMLA to have cancer treatment. Even if it’s the end of the fiscal year, your office is crazy busy, and you don’t allow people to take vacations during that quarter, you have to approve the FMLA because it’s an entitlement.

Mistake: Not allowing the employee to choose his 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, or LWOP. That means an employee can use LWOP during FMLA and keep all his annual leave and sick leave and save it for a rainy day. And there’s not a darn thing you can do about it.

Mistake: Putting an employee on LWOP without the employee’s consent. If a supervisor unilaterally places an employee on LWOP, although the employee did not request it, the supervisor has improperly suspended the employee without adverse action procedures. On appeal, the employee would be entitled to back pay for that period of time he was carried on LWOP without his consent. See Martin v. USPS, 2016 MSPB 16. The authorization of LWOP is a matter of administrative discretion and employees may not demand that they be granted LWOP as a matter of right, Desiderio v. Navy, 4 MSPB 171, 4 MSPR 84 (1980), but the supervisor may not place the employee on LWOP status without the employee’s consent.

Mistake: Letting employees abuse the Voluntary Leave Transfer Program (VLTP). Agency VLTPs are generally for short-term medical emergencies, to get an employee through a difficult time. If a supervisor allows VLTP for medical non-emergencies, it denies the benefit to employees who truly need the leave. Be aware, though, that normal maternity situations meet medical emergency criteria. Therefore, pregnant employees will qualify for VLTP even if there is not a medical emergency related to the pregnancy. Once an employee is approved for the VLTP, though, donated leave use is not an entitlement even if it is for medical reasons; it is still  subject to the same approval/disapproval  procedures as is annual leave. See Jones v. DoT, 295 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir., 2002).

I have more, but that should do it for today. Go forth and be wise in granting or denying leave requests – and remember, supervisors, in most cases, it’s up to you. [email protected]

Another Case Involving the Role of Agency Defense Counsel During the EEO Investigation

, ,

By Deborah Hopkins, September 19, 2018

For eons (OK, maybe not eons but it sure feels like it), the EEOC has issued decisions that discuss the importance of conducting impartial investigations. In these decisions, the Commission also shares its view of the role of agency defense counsel during EEO pre-complaint and investigation stages. The Commission has repeatedly held that agency defense counsel should not be involved in assisting supervisors during the pendency of these processes. Yet, the sanctions EEOC issues when agency OGC offices do become involved are so weak that, as Ernie Hadley wrote in this newsletter back in 2014, “it should give pause as to how serious the Commission really is about the issue.”

Just a few weeks ago, the Commission tackled the topic yet again in Josefina L. v. SSA, EEOC Appeal No. 0120161760 (July 10, 2018). In this case, the complainant filed a complaint against her supervisor for harassment and discrimination based on sex and disability, alleging a number of discriminatory events that occurred over a 13-month period. You can read the case yourself if you want to get an idea of her claims, but I’ll give you the punchline: Josefina didn’t like it when her supervisor told her what to do, and she let him know that by using sarcasm and/or by not performing the job duties he told her to. The decision is mostly unremarkable, as the Commission found no discrimination based on the merits.

However, the Commission took time to address how an attorney in the agency’s OGC worked closely with the accused supervisor (in the decision, he is referred to as S1) in developing his affidavit for the EEO investigator:

In the email, Counsel told S1 it was great to have spoken with him that morning and requested that S1 provide a copy of his affidavit for review. In an email dated January 5, 2016, Counsel informed S1 that he was “the attorney assigned to assist” him with his affidavit for his EEO complaint, and he was working on revisions and should have them for S1 within the next few days. Counsel further directed S1 “not to discuss OGC’s involvement in this case with the Investigator in any capacity,” and to inform Counsel immediately if the investigator contacted him for other information. Additionally, in an email dated January 7, 2016 to S1, Counsel asked S1 to review OGC’s proposed changes and comments about his draft affidavit statements. Counsel also directed S1 “not to cc [Counsel] on the correspondence to the investigator, or otherwise share [Counsel’s] involvement in this matter,” and to ensure that all his comments were deleted from the final version of his affidavit responses.

It’s clear from the facts above that the attorney absolutely did not want his assistance to S1 to be known. Not good.

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). So it is not surprising that in Josefina L., the Commission found “…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.” The Commission also noted that this agency was recently sanctioned for similar conduct. See Hortencia R. v. SSA, EEOC Appeal No. 0120150228 (May 3, 2017). Strike two.

The Commission, finding improper interference, imposed sanctions on SSA in Josefina L.: EEO managers and OGC personnel were ordered to undergo training on the proper role of OGC in the EEO process. The Commission determined that “OGC’s actions did not impact the investigation or the ultimate determination of Complainant’s case to such an extent that a more severe sanction is warranted.”

If you’re thinking, “That’s it?” you had a similar response as mine when I read this case. If EEOC considers this such a huge injustice, why are the sanctions so weak?

If agencies were to take the Josefina L. decision as an EEO policy, the accused supervisor would be hung out to dry with no help, unless he hired his own attorney to assist during the investigation stage. (A quick look at the Laffey Matrix tells you that’s out of the question for most supervisors.) If agencies were to take the Josefina L. decision merely as a continued expression of the Commission’s wish list or preference, they might not change anything in the way they provide assistance during the investigation.

As far as we are aware, there is no law or regulation that specifically prohibits all agency counsel from providing advice to supervisors during EEO proceedings. But Management Directive 110, Chapter 1, Section IV, says:

Because the agency carries this responsibility of impartially processing discrimination complaints, conflicts of interest can arise when agency representatives in offices, programs, or divisions within the agency with a legal defensive role play a part in the impartial processing. This does not mean that any involvement in the EEO process by the Office of General Counsel or Office of Human Capital automatically creates a potential conflict, but instead refers to impermissible involvement in the EEO process by those employees or units of employees designated to represent the agency in adversarial proceedings. See Complainant v. Dep’t. of Defense [TXT], EEOC Appeal No. 0120084008 (June 6, 2014) (finding that an agency representative should not interfere with the development of the EEO investigative record by “us[ing] the power of its office to intimidate a complainant or her witnesses”); see also Rucker v. Dep’t. of the Treasury [TXT], EEOC Appeal No. 0120082225 (Feb. 4, 2011) (stating an agency “should be careful to avoid even the appearance that it is interfering with the EEO process.”) [bold added]

I’m all for an impartial EEO investigation. After all, the law requires it, and it’s only fair. When agency defense counsel is clearly looking to impact the investigation, we have a big problem and a violation of the law. But is impartiality automatically thrown out the window when an agency attorney assists an accused RMO through the process? Not automatically, but it should cause you to pause. Look at the bold text in MD-110. My read says that an attorney who will be defending the agency should not be involved, but it doesn’t say another attorney cannot be involved. A federal supervisor is presumed to be acting on behalf of the agency, so why shouldn’t someone in the agency (perhaps a different attorney, or an L/ER specialist not involved in agency defense) help the supervisor prepare to explain her actions to an investigator?

Is there a happy medium? What if agencies:

1 – Build a wall around an attorney in OGC who can work with the supervisor during the investigation, and then do nothing else on the case (therefore, not become the agency’s “representative”); or

2 – Use an L/ER specialist to work with the supervisor in the investigation stage, so as not to mingle the defense role with the ongoing investigation; or

3 – Hire outside counsel to work with the supervisor during the investigation stage, to assist in the development of the affidavit, and any other related matters.

Would those options make agencies more comfortable while simultaneously making EEOC happy? Your ideas and thoughts are welcome. [email protected]

Can Federal Employees Smoke Pot?

, ,

By Deborah Hopkins, August 15, 2018

I live in Washington, DC, and on any given day, I’ll smell the unique scent of marijuana several times as I go about my daily activities. During a 6 a.m. run – yep, there’s a strong hint of weed in the air as I run through my neighborhood in NW. I guess it goes well with coffee? Walking to the Metro behind someone who is openly smoking a joint? Happens all the time. A car drives by, windows open, and out wafts the pungent smell of cannabis? You’d better believe it. Recreational marijuana is legal in DC, so it’s everywhere. Literally, everywhere.

  • Fun Fact 1: It’s illegal to sell in DC, but you can give it away for free. Or you can buy something – say, a pencil, for $20 – and with it comes a free joint. There are even smartphone apps for easy ordering. Gotta love those legal loopholes.
  • Fun Fact 2: It’s technically only legal to use in the privacy of your own home, and its use is prohibited in public places such as sidewalks, hospitals, buses, and on federal property. But that’s not really enforced much.

So, anyone who lives in DC is allowed to use marijuana, right? Wrong.

It is illegal for federal employees to use marijuana in any form – smoke, edibles, tinctures, pens, etc. – if they are employed by a federal agency, even if they live in a place where marijuana is legal. So if a federal employee living in DC uses marijuana, it’s very likely she will have to say goodbye to her federal job because she will be removed, most likely for misconduct or suitability reasons.

The same applies for federal employees in the nine states where recreational marijuana is currently legal: Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. (About 20 additional states allow for its use with a medical license.)

There’s proposed legislation in Congress that would change that. The bipartisan bill Fairness in Federal Drug Testing Under State Laws Act (H.R. 6589) was recently introduced by Charlie Crist (D-FL) and co-sponsored by Drew Ferguson (R-GA). Look at that, Democrats and Republicans on the same page about something! In its current form, the bill would bar the federal government from denying employment or making federal employees “subject to any other adverse personnel action” if they tested positive for marijuana while living in a state where its use is legal.

A few weeks ago, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) introduced the Marijuana Freedom and Opportunity Act (S. 3174) which would take marijuana off the list of controlled substances at the federal level. That bill hasn’t gone anywhere yet.

A few more statistics: According to one article I read, about 42 percent of government employees surveyed (includes state and local government) approve of legalizing recreational and medicinal marijuana and about 21 percent think only medicinal marijuana should be legalized. Roughly 11 percent oppose legalizing it in any form.

Now that we’re on the same page regarding the legality of marijuana use by federal employees, I want to answer a few questions that routinely come up during training sessions.

Can a federal agency require a drug test from an employee suspected of being under the influence of marijuana?

There are two categories we need to look at here: drug testing positions and non-drug testing positions.

Drug Testing Positions:

An agency can order a drug test of an employee if the employee occupies a position that has been identified as part of the agency’s drug testing program, and the agency has a reasonable belief the employee is under the influence. Mandatory drug testing is a search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment and must be reasonable to pass constitutional muster. NTEU v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656 (1989).

In addition, an employee is generally required to comply with an order to take a drug test first, and to challenge the order after the fact. Watson v. DOT, 91 FMSR 5447 (1991)

In order to sustain a charge of failure or refusal to comply with an order to undergo a drug test, the agency must prove:

  1. The employee was given an order to undergo a test;
  2. The order was lawful (i.e., within the agency’s authority);
  3. The employee failed or refused to comply; and
  4. The failure or refusal was not justified.

Garrison v. DOJ, 95 FMSR 5215 (1995)

Non-Drug Testing Positions:

The agency’s drug testing program has to be designed to balance the needs of the agency relative to the particular types of positions with an employee’s rights to privacy. So if the employee is just a regular old employee occupying a regular old position, he generally cannot be ordered to undergo a drug test. A good agency strategy is that if it suspects drug intoxication in an employee who does not occupy a testing position, offer the drug test anyway. If the employee refuses, that refusal can be used when evaluating the other evidence (bloodshot eyes, smell of marijuana, etc.). There is a “reasonable suspicion” exception that bumps up against constitutional issues, and exceptions if there is an accident in the workplace, but generally an agency wouldn’t even need to go the drug testing route if there is preponderant evidence the employee is under the influence.

Can a federal employee use marijuana as a reasonable accommodation for a disability?

While medical marijuana has been shown to be effective for treatments from stomach ulcers to glaucoma to cancer, it is NOT a reasonable accommodation because its use violates federal law.

What happens if a federal employee doesn’t use marijuana but lives in a home where non-federal employees smoke, grow or otherwise use marijuana?

Just ask the former USDA employee whose husband grew and sold marijuana on their property in California, a state where it was legal to do so. While there was no evidence the employee actually used marijuana herself, residing in a place where it was grown and sold was enough to cost her a GS-9 Forestry technician position.  Avila v. Agriculture, MSPB No. SF-0752-17-0488-I-1 (February 26, 2018) (ID).

Is using marijuana while a federal employee a zero-tolerance, automatic removal?

No. In fact, zero-tolerance, automatic-removal policies are illegal in the government with a few exceptions. As the law stands, just about every executive agency (except the VA) must determine the appropriate penalty by considering the Douglas factors in a case where an employee is using marijuana. Sometimes, we see agencies incorporate last chance agreements with people who use illegal drugs, and those can be very effective. If successful, you retain an otherwise good employee. But if the employee violates the agreement, it’s immediate removal.

Here’s a case example: The USPS removed an employee who violated a last chance agreement that included a provision prohibiting her from working under the influence of drugs or alcohol while on duty. She was sent for a drug and alcohol test after her supervisor noticed she was having difficulty keeping her balance and her eyes were “red and glossy.” She tested positive for alcohol and marijuana. As last chance agreements go, this meant immediate removal for the employee. Complainant v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC No. 0120130190 (2014).

What if a supervisor believes a federal employee is under the influence of marijuana at work, but doesn’t want to discipline the employee because the employee is much more pleasant to work with when he is high?

I have been asked this more than once, and I laugh out loud every time because I can see why this scenario might be tempting to ignore. That’s between you and your agency, but I bet you know the correct answer: Your job is on the line if you let that one go.

We’ll keep you posted on the proposed legislation if it goes anywhere, but in the meantime, Just Say No. [email protected]

Is There Such Thing as a Triple-Negative?

, ,

By Deborah Hopkins, August 15, 2018

A few days ago I saw a news headline from a well-known legal resource that said, “Judge declines to dismiss suit against ban on transgender people in military” and I had to stop and re-read it a few times as I tried to figure out what it was saying. Is this a double-negative? A triple-negative? And I’m still not sure I understand what the story is about; I didn’t click on the link because I couldn’t get past the headline. Maybe I’m impatient, but I have to think a lot of other people are as well.

If you have to read a sentence more than once in order to understand it, then you have a poorly written sentence. With legal writing it can be tempting to use complex words and long sentences, but the Plain Language Movement is alive and well, and people from appellants to union reps to judges appreciate legal documents that make sense and are easy to read – the first time.

Below are a few of the helpful tips we teach in FELTG’s legal writing classes.

Use F-IRAC

This method gets beaten into our brains in law school, after which we promptly forget we’ve ever learned it. But it’s actually an incredible way to stay organized, to keep the reader moving along, and inevitably lead to the conclusion you’re making.

Facts: What happened?

Issue: What is this about?

Rule: What is the guiding law on this topic?

Analysis: How does the law, when applied to the facts, support my position?

Conclusion: Answers the question posed in the issue.

Don’t Bury the Lead

Legal writing is not creative writing and it can feel a little boring sometimes. But you don’t want people to have to wait until the end of the document to know what the document is about. The biggest reason is that most people won’t actually read the entire document. So do yourself (and your client) a favor and put the important stuff up front.

Don’t Characterize the Facts

It can be tempting to add a little flair to the factual narrative but be careful to use only facts and not opinion. If opinion is interjected, it can damage your credibility and your entire case might suffer as a result.

Example of characterization from the agency side: Supervisor Cook asked the grievant to stop wasting time and to return to his assigned duties. In response and without provocation, the grievant spun away, ignoring the manager’s lawful order, and essentially engaged in an illegal strike.

Example of characterization from the employee’s side: The “temporary” supervisor ordered Mr. Jones to get back to work immediately with no excuses accepted. Trying to avoid an unnecessary confrontation, Mr. Jones stepped away to give the “temporary” supervisor time to cool down.

Rewritten without characterization: The acting supervisor told the employee to return to work. The employee turned and walked away.

Choose Your Verbs Wisely

One little verb can change the whole meaning of a sentence, so be smart about your verb selection and don’t use a thesaurus carelessly.

Take a look at these examples:

  • The witness affirmed that she saw the supervisor touch the complainant’s breast.
    • The word affirmed implies trust.
  • The witness stated that she saw the supervisor touch the complainant’s breast.
    • The word stated, along with words such as said or testified, implies neutrality.
  • The witness alleged that she saw the supervisor touch the complainant’s breast.
    • The word alleged implies doubt.

There’s plenty more we’ll cover in future articles, but this should get you started. In the meantime, have fun being a little boring in your writing. 🙂 [email protected]

How Specific Does a Legitimate, Nondiscriminatory Reason Need to Be?

, ,

By Deborah Hopkins, July 18, 2018

One of the things we teach in just about all of our FELTG classes is the importance of documentation. Management in the federal government is a defensive business. Because employees can challenge almost anything a supervisor does in the workplace in some forum or other (think administrative grievance, union grievance, EEO complaint, MSPB appeal, Office of Special Counsel, Department of Labor), it is exceedingly important for supervisors to document why they are taking whatever action they’re taking – or not taking.

That’s easy to do in cases of performance or discipline and has become second nature to our FELTG-Certified Practitioners. But when you’re at hearing in 2023, will you really remember why you denied someone’s annual leave request last week? Probably not, unless you documented it when it happened, and have those notes to refer to down the road. That’s why we also strongly advise supervisors to make notes about more than just discipline or performance, because there are certain times when a faded memory fails to meet a legal threshold.

Let’s look at some cases of Intentional EEO Discrimination involving circumstantial evidence. While the events don’t occur in a ping-pong format, the general analysis is this:

  1. Complainant alleges he is treated unfairly in some way because of, or motivated by, his protected EEO category.
  • Examples: nonselection; denial of training; reassignment; low performance rating.
  1. Agency articulates a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason about the allegation.
  • Supervisors: insert your documentation here.
  1.  Complainant demonstrates pretext. That means the complainant has to show:
  • The agency is lying, or
  • The agency is telling the truth but its action was motivated by discrimination.

Problems arise for agencies when the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason is not specific. If times, dates, and details aren’t there, that vague response is generally not enough to overcome pretext.

Let’s say the complainant alleges she wasn’t promoted because of her religion. The selecting official, when questioned about why the selectee was chosen and the complainant was not, says, “I don’t remember specifically because it was a while ago, but I am sure I chose the selectee because she was the best qualified. Her interview was really good, and plus the complainant came somewhere pretty low on the score sheet.”

Sounds pretty common, but that selecting official’s statement alone is not specific enough to overcome that presumption of discrimination, so the complainant is probably going to win this case. Does this mean she was definitely discriminated against because of her religion? Nope, there may not even be any actual merit to the claim – but there will probably be a discrimination finding anyway.

As our good friend and FELTG instructor Ernie Hadley writes in his EEO Guide, the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason offered by the agency “must do more than merely distinguish the particular facts of a situation.” In order to be considered sufficient, it must “articulate some meaningful distinction” which is related to a legitimate aim of the agency.

Below are a few cases to give you a better idea of what this looks like in the real world.

An applicant applied for a job at USPS and, though she was qualified, her application was not forwarded to the selecting official. She challenged this as discriminatory based on her gender. There were no notes, scores, or specific explanations of the scoring process in the agency record. A selection panel member was questioned about why the complainant was not considered, and his assertion that he “could only assume” she did not show she had the skills needed to work at a higher level was inadequate to overcome the allegation of discrimination. Hatcher-Capers v. USPS, EEOC No. 07A60008 (2006). Does this mean she was most definitely discriminated against because of her gender? No. Maybe she was; maybe she wasn’t. But the vague response from the selecting official was not enough not overcome her allegation, so she won her complaint.

In a very recent case, an IT Specialist alleged he was not selected for a supervisory position because of his sex and his age (69). The selecting official had since left the agency, but in an unsworn statement, said that he had chosen the 37-year-old female selectee based on merit. In considering the evidence, the EEOC said the agency record was “bereft” as to how the five candidates were chosen for interviews, nor about the real reasons why the selectee ultimately was chosen. Therefore, the agency did not provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. William G v. DLA, EEOC No. 0120160837 (February 14, 2018).

Now that you’ve seen what’s not enough of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, let’s look at a case that shows what is enough.

A USPS employee was terminated after he got into a physical altercation with a supervisor. He alleged that he was removed because of his sex and because he had bipolar disorder. The agency provided a [specific] legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its removal action: The physical altercation with the supervisor violated its documented standards of conduct. Hlinka v. USPS, EEOC No. 0120064401 (2008). Easy peasy. That’s how you do it.

So you see, in most cases you’ll be just fine, as long as you have your documentation handy. If you don’t have a notebook now, go buy one and start tracking why you do what you do. As we say at FELTG, we hope you never need those notes, but you’ll be awfully glad you have them if you do. [email protected].

Use these Clickbait-Type HR Terms for Loads of Fun at Cocktail Parties

, ,

By Deborah Hopkins, July 18, 2018

Sometimes, after a long day, I find myself in a labyrinth of articles intended to draw in the reader with catchy titles or claims – clickbait. Every now and then (though sadly not often) I find something amusing, interesting, or valuable. Of course, given my profession I’m drawn to HR-and-legal-type articles, but I’m not immune to other topics – especially on a transcontinental flight when the WiFi is actually working.

It’s summertime and while there are plenty of important things happening every day, sometimes you just need a little mindless reading, so here for your reading pleasure is a list, in no particular order, of some trendy HR and legal terms that I’ve come across in recent months. You’ll see a loose definition, and beneath it the word or term used in a sentence.

Mainstream – a verb people are using that basically means “to offer for consideration.”

  • “I’ll mainstream this policy draft to the CHCO ASAP.”

Socialize – another trendy word for passing around a document in the workplace, so that important people see it. Often used in conjunction with mainstream.

  • “Let me socialize your resume around the front office to see if anyone wants to mainstream it.”

Upskill – a term for teaching an employee new workplace skills.

  • “Employees who participate in voluntary upskill seminars are more likely to be promoted.”

Retention interview – an interview with a current employee, who has no plans to leave the agency, about why she still works there. (Umm, what?)

  • “I’ll meet you for lunch after I get out of my retention interview with the Director.”

Deep dive background – a number of employers don’t just call references. No, they comb through social media to learn all they can about a potential hire, before scheduling an interview. This is a deep dive.

  • “Before we bring him in for an interview, we need to do a deep dive background on the candidate so there aren’t any surprises.”

Lifeline – a term that signifies the heart and soul of why your organization exists and who is most essential to its ability to achieve the agency mission.

  • “The GS-12 analysts are our lifeline; without them we can’t do anything.”

Mobility pyramid – an organizational model that identifies who is least likely, up to who is most likely, to be willing to be reassigned in the event of a reorganization.

  • “The 2018 mobility pyramid shows that 30% of our workforce is rooted to the headquarters region.”

People and Culture – I saw this one in an Australian HR publication, and it is how a particular company refers to its HR department. In fact, HR departments all over the world are getting rid of the Human Resources moniker in favor of cutting-edge labels like People Operations, Employee Experience, or Partner Resources.

  • “We have a job opening for Assistant Director of People and Culture.”

Delayering – though this looks like a word for slowing something down, it actually means getting rid of hierarchy.

  • “The agency head is considering delayering the federal contractor selection system.”

Induction – a word for what we used to call onboarding or orientation.

  • “The employee will arrive for induction Monday morning at 8:00.”

360-degree feedback – a process of performance appraisal where employees are rated not only by supervisors, but by coworkers, direct reports, and customers too.

  • “We’re running a pilot on 360-degree feedback to see if it improves the employee’s motivation to perform.”

People analytics – turning people into statistics in an attempt to solve grand-scale problems.

  • “As our organization grows, we need to run a predictive people analytics test to determine how many new hires to induct as part of the delayering process.”

And finally …

Contribution – a term I recently saw an agency start using, to replace the word performance. Yes, that’s right, instead of a Performance Plan, the employees are given Contribution Plans, and they are rated not on their Performance but on their Contribution to the agency.

  • “Please meet me at 2:00 Tuesday for your mid-year Contribution assessment feedback meeting.”

 

As the teenagers used to say in 2016, I can’t even.

My brain hurts. Whatever happened to words like apply, interview, and job offer? I guess that’s for greater minds than mine to determine.

And with that, go forth and enhance your vocabulary. [email protected]

Handling Social Media Threats from an Off-Duty Employee

, ,

By Deborah Hopkins, June 12, 2018

Here’s an email we received after a recent training program on managing employee behavioral health issues in the federal workplace:

Dear FELTG, thank you for an excellent presentation today on behavioral health issues. I had a question about how we work with an employee who is delusional, in danger of being harmed and not in the workplace at present. How do we handle calls/texts on our personal cell phones and social media (such as Facebook) from such an employee?  What is our responsibility as an organization with this situation?

And here’s the response to the hypothetical scenario above:

Dear FELTG Attendee,

Thanks for the email. Regarding the “legal” side of this hypothetical case: if the person is a current employee and the texting/messaging/calling is causing a disruption in the workplace (there’s your nexus), you can give a direct order to the employee to stop contacting co-workers on their personal phones and social media accounts. Then, if the behavior continues, you can issue discipline for the violation. As far as an appropriate penalty, that’s directly related to the level of disruption the texting/calling causes. (Unless you’re in the VA, in which case you can fire the employee and not worry about a judge mitigating the penalty to something less than removal. I’m not necessarily suggesting you do that – but it is the new law for the VA.)

If you want to be extra careful, when you give the employee the written directive to stop contacting people after hours, you’ll include the gag order language below – if you don’t want to give the Office of Special Counsel any reasons to get excited.

“These provisions are consistent with and do not supersede, conflict with, or otherwise alter the employee obligations, rights, or liabilities created by existing statute or Executive order relating to (1) classified information, (2) communications to Congress, (3) the reporting to an Inspector General of a violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or (4) any other whistleblower protection. The definitions, requirements, obligations, rights, sanctions, and liabilities created by controlling Executive orders and statutory provisions are incorporated into this agreement and are controlling.”

Discipline early, before it gets any further out of hand. So, there’s the legal side. On the clinical side, here are some thoughts on dealing with someone who may have some behavioral health issues:

  1. Be careful about what you say to the employee so you don’t set him off, and if feasible, direct the employee towards professional help or EAP. Also, save the conversations/texts that are being sent, should you need them as evidence later on.
  2. If things escalate and the person does not listen to your orders to stop texting/calling/messaging, you can contact your local behavioral health crisis hotline and provide them with all the information they have so a mental health professional can intervene.
  3. Also, if the employee is making violent threats towards others you can call the local police and/or mental health crisis line. If you feel the employee is in immediate danger or is reporting thoughts to kill himself, then call 911 and the crisis line as they will work collaboratively.

Mental and behavioral health issues are no joke, so whatever you do, don’t ignore them.

If you want more, come to our upcoming class Handling Federal Workplace Challenges: Dealing with Behavioral Health Issues, Threats of Violence, and Coworker Conflicts July 17-19 in Washington, DC.

[email protected]

The Two Sides of EEO Reprisal Protections: Participation and Opposition

, ,

By Deborah Hopkins, June 12, 2018

Reprisal is a word that strikes fear in the hearts of supervisors everywhere. Indeed, we’ve seen a few cases where seemingly-minor behaviors were found to be EEO reprisal. For the purposes of this article, we’ll define reprisal as adverse treatment of an individual who engages in protected activity. Adverse treatment is much broader than adverse actions; it applies to any undesirable treatment, including things that would not constitute personal injury under EEO antidiscrimination statutes.

A lot of federal supervisors and advisers know that the law protects people for participating in the EEO process in any way, but many miss the other side of protection: the opposition side of EEO activity. Let’s look at both. But first, as we do here at FELTG, let’s look at the law.

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any employees or applicants . . . because he has opposed any practice made unlawful by this subchapter, or because he had made a charge, testified, assisted or participated in an investigation, proceeding or hearing . . .

 42 USC § 2000e-3 (emphasis added).

Participation Clause

The following things are considered participation in protected EEO activity, and employees who engage in these activities are protected from reprisal.

  • Contacting an EEO counselor
  • Filing a formal EEO complaint
  • Testifying at an investigation or hearing
  • Providing documents to a complainant
  • Requesting a reasonable accommodation

There probably aren’t any surprises on that list. However, the participation clause of the law goes much further, as we see in the case law. Read on.

  • Filing a frivolous EEO complaint is participation, as is contacting an EEO counselor with no intent to file a complaint. Hashimoto v. Dalton, 118 F.3d 671 (9th 1997), cited in EEOC Compliance Manual §8-11(C)(2).
  • A witness doesn’t need to actually testify in order to be protected. Being named as a potential witness is participation for the purposes of reprisal protection. Green v. Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01964701 (1997).
  • Representing a complainant is participation, and action taken against a representative aggrieves the complainant and may be considered reprisal. Larson v. Secretary of Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01983075 (1999).
  • Even having a close association with individuals who file complaints is a protected activity. The seminal case on this involved an engaged couple. The company fired the complainant’s fiancé in reprisal, and the Supreme Court said, “We think it obvious that a reasonable worker might be dissuaded from engaging in protected activity if she knew that her fiancé would be fired.” We don’t know the extent of association, though; the Court declined to “identify a fixed class of relationships for which third-party reprisals are unlawful.” Best practice: don’t push it. Thompson v. Northern American Stainless, LP, 131 S. Ct. (2011).

There is a limit to the participation clause, though: an employee can’t go storming off workroom floor in search of counselor in defiance of supervisor’s order, and if he does, disciplining that employee is not reprisal for protected activity. Butler v. Postmaster General, EEOC Appeal No. 01872877 (1988).

Having fun yet?

Opposition Clause

The EEOC Compliance Manual, 8–II(B), tells us that an individual is protected from reprisal if that individual explicitly or implicitly communicates to her employer a belief that an activity constitutes a form of employment discrimination under the statutes enforced by EEOC. This opposition must strike a balance between a supervisor’s need for a stable and productive workforce, the rights of individuals to oppose discrimination, and the public’s interest in enforcement of EEO laws.

Frivolous opposition is not covered, though. The Opposition Clause has three requirements, and an employee must meet at least one. An employee sets forth a proper claim if:

  1. A challenged employment practice violates Title VII;
  2. She possessed a good faith, reasonable belief that it did; or
  3. She possessed a subjective, good faith belief that Title VII was violated by the practice.

Mattern v. Postmaster General, EEOC Appeal No. 01850054 (1986).

So, a comment such as an employee’s vague assertion, “All these agency managers are a bunch of white supremacists” is likely not enough to trigger the protection of the opposition clause.

But, examples of covered opposition include specific complaints about employment practices to:

  • Managers or supervisors
  • Union officials
  • Coworkers
  • Reporters
  • Congresspersons

So, hopefully now you know more about reprisal. For more on this topic, join us for EEOC Law Week offered next September 17-21 in Washington, DC. [email protected]

Final Agency WHAT?

, ,

By Deborah Hopkins, May 16, 2018

Remember in grade school, learning about homonyms? In case you don’t remember, homonyms are words which sound alike or are spelled alike, but have different meanings. Think to, too, and two; or they’re, their and there. It’s not always a fatal error to use the wrong word, but it can make you look pretty silly.

Lots of terms that sound alike, but have different meanings, get used in our federal employment law world – and while people may be tempted to use these terms interchangeably, sometimes it’s a mistake to do so. Today, let’s clear up any potential confusion over these common EEO terms:

  • Final Agency Decision
  • Final Agency Order
  • Final Agency Determination
  • Final Agency Action

First up is the Final Agency Decision (FAD), which refers to a written decision on a complaint of discrimination that is made by the agency’s EEO Office, without a hearing before an Administrative Judge. The agency will issue findings based on the claims raised, and if discrimination is found, will issue a remedy. This may include agency decisions to dismiss claims, or agency decisions on the merits. A FAD is appealable, by the complainant, to the EEOC. Agencies are not permitted to appeal their own FADs (though some would like to!).

If complainant requests a FAD, fails to request a hearing, or files an untimely hearing request, the agency must issue Final Agency Decision within 60 days. 29 CFR § 1614.110(b).

On to the rest. EEOC Management Directive 110 clarifies these terms for us:

A Final Agency Order refers to a decision by an agency to implement or not implement an Administrative Judge’s decision, which is appealable to the Commission. That’s right, an agency can choose not to implement all – or any part – of an AJ’s decision if it disagrees with the finding, the amount of damages, or any other remedy therein. If the agency’s final order does not fully implement the AJ’s decision, the agency must simultaneously appeal to the Commission with its reasons explained.

A Final Agency Determination refers to an agency’s determination about whether there was a breach of a settlement agreement that is appealable to the Commission. For example, the agency may make a determination the complainant breached the settlement if, as part of the settlement the employee agreed to withdraw all pending EEO Complaints but then did not do so.

A Final Agency Action refers to an agency’s last and, unsurprisingly, final action on a complaint of employment discrimination. The final agency action may be in any of several forms:

  • a final agency decision,
  • a final agency order implementing an Administrative Judge’s decision, or
  • a final determination on a breach of settlement agreement claim.

Hope this helps curb some of the confusion around these similar, but non-interchangeable terms. [email protected]

Bullied by the Union – What Can You Do?

, ,

By Deborah Hopkins, May 16, 2018

Questions, we get wonderful questions from our wonderful class participants. This one combines the very contemporary issue of workplace bullying with the old-as-the-hills concept of union official robust debate:

Dear FELTG,

Where can I find information about addressing union reps’ rude, unprofessional, and hostile behavior in emails, in-person, and on the phone when performing day-to-day representation duties? I am aware of the robust debate exception to misconduct, but this behavior is not during negotiations, creates a hostile work environment and any non-union employee would be disciplined.  As an employee, I should not have to tolerate this, and it interferes with my work.  Agency LR staff says the union has the right to act the way it does.  I want the union to show me respect like I show them. I want their behavior to stop and the agency to stop allowing it. Please advise.

Thank you, Bullied by Union

Here’s the FELTG response.

Dear Bullied,

You may not like the FELTG answer, but based on the hypothetical you’ve described, your LR staff is correct. Robust debate is the term we use to describe the rough speech and raised voices that union representatives are allowed to exhibit when performing representational duties – not just during negotiations. This “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open debate,” is protected activity and may include profanity and shouting, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. National Association of Letter Carriers v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264 (1974).

Congress intended to permit union-related debate, even if it rose to the level of “unrestrained” or “uncivil.” Language used during union-related discussions may be “intemperate, abusive and insulting.” Old Dominion Branch, NALC v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264 (1974).

To help clarify this, here are a few examples of protected activity:

  • When the supervisor refused to make an overtime decision, the union president said, “Fuck you. I don’t give a fuck.” The supervisor had the employee removed from the workplace. FLRA held that the supervisor committed a ULP. FAA v. NATCC, 64 FLRA 419 (2010)
  • Calling management a “cheap son-of-a-bitch,” Groves Truck & Trailer, 281 NLRB 1194 (1986)
  • The statement, “Management is a bunch of assholes,” UPS, 241 NLRB 389 (1979)
  • Referring to an employee as an “Egotistical fucker and a fucking liar,” Union Carbide, 331 NLRB 356 (2000)

Pretty robust, wouldn’t you say?

There are some limits, though. A union rep may be disciplined for “robust debate,” but only in two circumstances:

  • If in doing so the union representative engages in flagrant misconduct, or
  • The behavior exceeds the bounds of protected activity.

5 USC 7102.

Here are a couple of examples of activity that is not protected and that is cause for discipline:

  1. A union officer interrupted an office birthday celebration and called the event a “blatant and ridiculous display of management’s power.”
    • She later complained about the dress code, called a district manager “ridiculous,” and shouted when talking about her supervisor.
    • The agency suspended her for two days for inappropriate, disrespectful, and disruptive behavior.
    • This was not robust debate because she was not acting in her union capacity.

AFGE, Local 1164 and SSA, 110 FLRR-1 128 (2010).

  1. A union steward was suspended for two incidents of improper behavior:
    • He spoke forcefully to an HR specialist with balled fists and referred to violence against her, making her feel “intimidated and threatened”
    • He called a supervisor “Uncle Tom” after the supervisor questioned his whereabouts.

He was not acting in his official capacity – and even if he were, robust debate does not include protection for racial slurs.

AFGE, Local 987 and U.S. Department of the Air Force, Warner Robins Air Logistics Center, Robins Air Force Base, Ga., 109 FLRR-1 79 (2009).

Factors to consider in determining whether language exceeds the bounds of protected status:

  • Does the union have a legitimate concern?
  • Was the workplace disrupted?
  • Who provoked the incident, supervisor or union rep?
  • Was the outburst spontaneous?
  • How extensive (and loud) was the profanity?
  • Who else overheard the exchange?

Defense Mapping Agency, 85 FLRR 1-1018 (1985).

There’s a different standard for acceptable conduct among employees and union reps engaging in union activity. The bottom line is, if the rude and disrespectful behavior occurs during representational duties, unless it’s racist or sexist, it’s probably protected and you can’t stop it from occurring. It’s unfortunate you’re dealing with such a tumultuous situation, but legally there is no recourse.

Good luck and keep your head down. [email protected]