Making Sense of Excepted Service, Trial Periods, and Appeal Rights

, ,

By Barbara Haga, May 16, 2023

Practitioners often ask me about when an excepted service employee has appeal rights. The answer to this question is not as simple as it might seem.

Let’s look at what excepted service is all about.

Depending on the agencies you have worked for, you may have a different view of what the excepted service covers. Some may be familiar with jobs such as intelligence specialist or attorneys, which are always excepted. Others may work in agencies where authorities to hire Veterans Readjustment Appointees are used frequently. If you work at your agency’s headquarters, you may be familiar with policy-making positions hired under excepted authorities.  Presidential Management Fellows and student appointments are also excepted.

Federal hiring around the time of the Civil War was largely accomplished through political patronage. That changed with the passage of the Pendleton Act in 1883, which created a merit-based hiring system known as the competitive service. Even at that time, there were exceptions established to the competitive process in what was identified as Schedules A and B. With passage of the Pendleton Act, only about 10 percent of the Federal jobs were competitive.  Over time that number increased, until by 1980 about 90 percent of Federal positions were competitive. According to the MSPB report Federal Appointment Authorities: Cutting through the Confusion [PDF], by 2005, only 28 percent of employees entering Federal service came in through a competitive appointment.

5 CFR 213.101 states that excepted service positions are those Executive Branch positions defined by statute, by the President, or by OPM which are not in the Senior Executive Service.  Excepted positions are identified as part of Schedules A, B, C, or D.  The “Excepted Schedules” are listed in Subpart C of Part 213 of the CFR.  As OPM makes adjustments to the jobs in those categories, they have to publish the list of new exceptions established and any that are revoked.

In deciding whether positions should be excepted from competitive service, there are two categories of jobs to be considered. The criteria are listed in 5 CFR 213.102(c).  The first group are those where OPM has determined that the positions are indefinitely removed from competitive service because the nature of the work precludes it from being included, for example, because it is impracticable to examine for the knowledge, skills, and abilities required for the job. This category includes positions such as attorneys and chaplains.

The other group are positions that are temporarily removed from the competitive service for the ease of hiring. However, they can convert to competitive service at a later date. That category covers Veterans Reemployment Act (VRA) appointments and appointments of individuals with severe disabilities.

Competitive service positions are subject to the civil service laws passed by Congress in Title 5. Excepted service positions are not covered by the appointment, pay, and classification rules in Title 5. Agencies have considerable latitude in designing personnel systems for excepted positions, although many tend to structure the excepted systems in very similar ways to the competitive processes. While I was researching material for this column, I found one agency’s document [PDF] which briefly attempts to explain some of the differences between competitive and excepted positions.

There are some basic differences between the two services. One is an employee’s ability to move to another position. Employees with competitive status can move to any other competitive position; they can also voluntarily leave the competitive service and take an excepted service position. However, when this happens, an employee must be informed of the consequences of making the switch. 5 CFR 302.102(b) requires that the agency:

  1. Notify the individual that the position is excepted, and that acceptance of that position takes him/her/them out of competitive service while in that position; and
  2. Obtain a written statement from employees that they understand they are leaving voluntarily to accept that excepted appointment.

Assuming the employee held a competitive appointment that would confer reinstatement rights, he/she/they could apply for competitive positions as a reinstatement eligible. Aside from the excepted positions which allow the employee to move into the competitive service, like VRAs, excepted employees may only be appointed in other excepted positions they qualify for. Unless they held a competitive appointment at some other time, they do not have status to apply under merit promotion programs for internal promotions/reassignments.

An excepted employee trying to move to the competitive service would have to be reached through an external hiring mechanism such as an OPM certificate of eligibles or Delegated Examining.

Being an excepted employee also affects an employee’s status in a reduction-in-force (RIF).  Page 20 of OPM’s Workforce Reshaping Operations Handbook [PDF] sums up what happens: “An employee with an excepted service appointment has no assignment rights under OPM’s RIF regulations. However, an agency may elect to provide its excepted service employees with RIF assignment rights.”

Competitive and excepted employees are listed in separate competitive levels based on the excepted authority that was used to hire them.  A displaced employee could not move into a competitive position unless he/she/they had personal competitive status from a prior appointment.

Excepted employees serve a trial period rather than a probationary period. The processes can be very different depending on the kind of excepted appointment.

Critical Case Update: Unacceptable Performance Removals in 2023 and Beyond

,

By William Wiley, April 21, 2023

For more than 40 years, the procedures a supervisor should use when confronted with a non-performing employee have been well-established. The supervisor had to:

  1. Give the employee attainable performance standards (objectives, expectations, whatever you want to call them, usually in an annual performance plan),
  2. Allow the employee a reasonable period of time to work under those standards to get used to them (hardly ever more than a couple of months), then,
  3. Initiate a Performance Improvement Plan memo to tell the employee that he is performing unacceptably, specify that he has 30 days or so to improve, and tell the employee exactly what objectives he has to accomplish during that time to keep his job.

If the employee failed to accomplish the PIP objectives, the supervisor was then obligated by law to remove the employee from the position. Removal from the position could be through reassignment, demotion, or firing. Choosing among those three options was left to the unreviewable discretion of the supervisor. To be sustained on appeal, the agency would have to prove by substantial evidence that the employee’s performance during the PIP was unacceptable.

PRO HINT: Here at FELTG, we have always taught that the supervisor should not just reassign or propose to demote the employee at the end of a failed PIP, but instead confront the employee with the reality that he could be terminated. Then, the supervisor should offer the employee the option of voluntarily requesting a demotion or reassignment (if those options are available), thereby avoiding the need for the supervisor to defend the action on appeal. If the employee were to decline the offer, the supervisor still retained all three options. There would be nothing to lose and much to gain by inviting the employee to initiate a voluntary action.

So why is 2023 an important time to step back and consider where we are with this procedure if it has been around for so long? Well, it’s important because we have a somewhat-new precedential court decision that has added a fourth step to the original procedure and two relatively new Board members who are applying that precedence for the first time to a number of cases.

First, the court-ordered added step. In Santos v. NASA, 990 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2021), the court held for the first time that the 1978 law that created the unacceptable performance removal procedure actually required four steps, not three. According to the court, the procedures a supervisor should use when confronted with a non-performing employee are:

  1. Give the employee attainable performance standards (objectives, expectations, whatever you want to call them, usually in an annual performance plan),
  2. Allow the employee a reasonable time to work under those standards to get used to them (hardly ever more than a couple of months),
  3. Collect evidence that the employee is failing one or more specific performance standards, then,
  4. Initiate a Performance Improvement Plan memo to tell the employee that he is performing unacceptably, specify that he has 30 days or so to improve, and tell the employee exactly what objectives he has to accomplish during that time to keep his job.

Santos effectively doubled the evidentiary burden that agencies have when defending the removal of a non-performing employee. Pre-Santos, the supervisor needed only to present proof of unacceptable performance that occurred during the PIP. Post-Santos, the supervisor now has to prove incidents of unacceptable performance BOTH pre- and post-PIP initiation. Put another way, before the Santos decision, on appeal the supervisor did not have to defend initiation of the PIP with examples of poor performance. Today, now that we have Santos, the agency’s case file will need documentation to prove that the employee performed unacceptably prior to PIP initiation.

Although Santos was issued two years ago, we have only recently had Board members in place at MSPB to interpret exactly how the new Santos requirement is to be implemented at the front-line level. Now that we’ve had a few post-Santos Board opinions, we can say with a moderate degree of confidence what supervisors should be doing to prepare to defend their post-PIP removal decisions.

We can take a fair amount of instruction from the recent non-precedential order Gwynn v. Treasury, MSPB Docket No. DC-0432-16-0865-I-1 (Feb. 28, 2023) (NP). The facts of the case are in bold below, followed by our FELTG assessment of those facts:

  • In the 10-12 months preceding the initiation of a PIP, the supervisor issued the employee eight counseling memoranda. As far as we can tell, there is no requirement to notify the employee of these pre-PIP failures prior to initiation of the PIP to satisfy Santos. In addition, there’s no requirement that any unacceptable performance notifications be in the form of a counseling memorandum. The proof will have to be in the agency file should the employee fail the PIP and the supervisor subsequently proposes to remove the employee. But it’s good to know these memoranda are acceptable justification, if you already have them in the file.
  • The supervisor issued the employee a poor midyear progress review and simultaneously placed the employee on a 60-day PIP. The supervisor did not need to issue a midyear progress review to justify the initiation of a PIP. The previous eight memoranda are enough. As we have taught for years, the better practice is to NOT issue a midyear review (or annual summary performance rating) prior to initiating a PIP. By doing so, the supervisor has now given the employee a discrete act to challenge through the EEO complaint process. And that’s exactly what this employee did, thereby occupying the agency with an EEO complaint that might not be resolved for years into the future. POP QUIZ! Now that this employee has been removed from his position for failure of the PIP, and has lost his appeal to MSPB, what happens if EEOC eventually finds that the EEO complaint related to the poor midyear progress review was illegally discriminatory? ANSWER: We don’t know, but it’s probably not good.
  • The supervisor initiated a 60-day PIP. After a few weeks on the PIP, the employee underwent emergency surgery and was on approved leave for medical reasons for five months. Once the employee returned to duty, the supervisor allowed the employee two to three weeks to get back up to speed, then re-initiated the PIP for a 30-day period. Had the PIP initially been established for a shorter period, less than 60 days, the supervisor might have been able to complete his evaluation of the employee’s performance prior to the need for sick leave. Be that as it may, the supervisor was fully within his rights to continue with the evaluation of the employee’s performance with the remainder of the PIP after the medical issue was resolved. In other words, he did not “lose the PIP” because of the medical absence. He did not have to start over.
  • The supervisor denied the employee’s reasonable accommodation request to telecommute based on his unacceptable performance and the on-going PIP. This is a valuable point. Unacceptable performance can be a valid reason to deny certain disability accommodation requests as well as being a valid reason to deny requests for annual leave or LWOP. But, be sure to follow the RA process every time.
  • The supervisor used 13 examples of unacceptable performance to justify the PIP, all drawn from the eight counseling memos and the midyear review. This is the heart of the new Santos requirement. On appeal, the employee attempted to rebut the facts and the conclusions put forward for each of the 13 pre-PIP examples, and the Board evaluated and ruled on the evidence supporting all 13. Of the 13, the Board held that 11 supported a conclusion that the appellant had performed unacceptably and 2 did not. A difficult unanswered question is what if only 9 out of 13 were found to be valid examples, would the PIP still have been justified? What if it was 6 out of 13? Or only 4?

After all of this evidence and analysis regarding pre-PIP performance, MSPB finally got around to evaluating the credibility of the testimony and documents relative to the employee’s performance during the PIP. It concluded that the employee failed to achieve “numerous” PIP objectives. Therefore, the agency’s removal (demotion) action was affirmed.

We now know, without a doubt, that an agency that removes a non-performing employee using 5 USC 432 procedures will have to prove by substantial evidence that the employee was performing unacceptably both pre-PIP and during or after the PIP. As for the pre-PIP failures to meet objectives, we believe Santos is satisfied by informing the employee of these specific incidents of unacceptable performance if they are incorporated into the PIP initiation memo. Such notice would establish that the supervisor ”warned the appellant of the inadequacies in her performance during the appraisal period and gave the employee an adequate opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance.” Santos, 990 F.3d at 1360-61.

There is one procedural aspect of this “warning” that is unclear. When must the agency come forward with its proof of the unacceptable pre-PIP performance? Is it obligated to present this evidence as an attachment to the PIP initiation memo given to the employee? If so, Santos doesn’t say that.

If the employee fails the PIP and the supervisor proposes the employee’s removal, should proof of the pre-PIP failures be attached to the proposal notice? It would seem necessary to do so to provide the employee a chance to defend himself prior to a decision being made regarding the proposal, e.g., to provide due process. However, in its remand orders implementing Santos, the Board says nothing about a due process concern that the agency did not provide the pre-PIP proof to the employee before making its decision. See Lee v. DVA, 2022 MSPB 11 (2022), paragraph 17: “On remand, the administrative judge shall accept evidence and argument on whether the agency proved by substantial evidence that the appellant’s pre-PIP performance was unacceptable.”

Taking all these recent lessons together, our admittedly legally-conservative FELTG advice to Federal employment law practitioners has changed. When approached by a supervisor who has a non-performing employee, the supervisor should be advised to:

  1. Make sure that the employee has been given performance standards (with critical elements identified) and has had at least a couple of months to get used to them.
  2. Collect evidence of mistakes the employee has made recently that demonstrate he is performing unacceptably under at least one of his critical elements.
  3. Incorporate reference to these mistakes in the PIP initiation memo. The supervisor should retain evidence of the mistakes but does not have to provide that evidence to the employee at this time. However, if you want to give this list to the employee, we recommend attaching it to the end of the PIP initiation so as not to start off on a negative and put the employee on the defensive.

If the employee fails to accomplish the PIP objectives and the supervisor decides to fire the employee, the proposal notice should contain proof of each of these pre- and post-PIP mistakes. Yes, this may be more than necessary, but we would rather err on the side of caution than risk a due process violation before the Board.

Civil service law experts who have been around from the beginning say the Santos requirement to prove pre-PIP unacceptable performance is the most significant change to the 5 USC Chapter 43 unacceptable performance procedures in more than 40 years. It is imperative that all who advise management or represent employees be aware of how this change is being implemented by the current Board members. [email protected]

One Way to Help Prevent Mass Murder in a Federal Workplace

, ,

By William Wiley, April 17, 2023

Did you hear about the recent deadly mass shooting at a Louisville bank? According to stories in the media, the killer was a 25-year-old employee. He had worked at the bank for six years, first just in the summers, then full time beginning in 2021. No doubt, he knew most everyone who worked there. Had he been in the Federal civil service, we would say that he had completed probation and was on track to becoming a career employee.

He had a master’s degree in finance from the University of Alabama. Only about 13 percent of the adult population in the U.S. has an advanced degree, so he would be among the more highly educated in most any workforce. He participated in sports in high school.

Apparently, he had raised complaints, perhaps within his workplace. At one point he said, “They won’t listen to words or protests. Let’s see if they hear this.”

So far, there’s nothing unusual about the history of the shooter or the job he held. His description could easily parallel the history of many Federal civil servants: Start your career while young in college, stick to the same type of job for several years, get a good education to prepare yourself for advancement. In fact, that’s exactly how the writer of this article started working for the federal government. Nothing outstanding or exceptional to make this guy stand out.

And then, the twist. He found out that he was about to be fired. As of this writing, we don’t know the reason for that removal decision, but perhaps it was misconduct or unacceptable performance. Soon after, on Monday, April 10, he walked into his workplace with an AR-15 rifle and killed five coworkers, at least two of whom were management officials. He set up an ambush and shot a responding police officer in the head. It is clear he probably would have killed more people if not for the heroic response by law enforcement.

Could this tragedy have been prevented? Could these five innocent lives have been spared? Although there are a number of hypotheticals that could have prevented these killings, the one most relevant to every reader of the FELTG Newsletter is this: Had the employee-shooter been barred from the workplace as soon as the tentative decision to fire him was made, he could not have accessed the workplace with his weapon and his murderous intent. This all happened in a bank, for goodness’ sake, probably one of the most secure workplaces around. Take away his employee hard-pass, instruct security not to let him through the door, and the chances are good he would not have been able to do this terrible thing. I don’t think it takes a great mind to see the advantage to keeping an individual away from the workplace once a tentative decision has been made to fire him. Even good people sometimes make bad decisions.

Now let’s look at the procedures relative to addressing the tentative removal of a Federal employee. Unlike in the private sector, a Federal employee is entitled to three important procedural steps relative here:

  • A written notice proposing removal and explaining the reasons for the tentative firing,
  • An opportunity to respond, and
  • 30 days of pay prior to the implementation of the proposal.

Nothing in law requires an employee be allowed to access the workplace during this 30-day notice period, not even for the response. It is completely consistent with the Federal statute that lays out the removal procedures for a civil servant for the proposal notice to tell the employee that he will be paid for 30 days, but he is barred from the worksite until a final decision is made. Given what happened in the Louisville mass shooting, one might think it prudent to do exactly that. Unfortunately, that is not what the government’s regulations require. Check this out, taken from 5 CFR § 752.404, with my comments in parentheses.

  1. Under ordinary circumstances, an employee whose removal has been proposed will remain in a duty status in his or her regular position. (That means IN THE WORKPLACE.)
  2. In the “rare” circumstances in which the agency determines that the employee’s presence in the workplace may pose a threat, the agency may:
  • A.  Assign the employee to other duties, (Elsewhere in the workplace?)
  • B. Allow the employee to take leave (Why would an employee use up accrued leave when there is a legal guarantee of full pay until a decision is made on his proposed removal?), or
  • C. Place the employee in a paid leave status, away from the workplace, e.g., bar the employee.

Although these procedures eventually allow the agency to bar the employee from the workplace, they do so only after stating that a barring should “rarely” be done.

As a prerequisite, the agency must somehow make the determination that it would be dangerous for this particular individual to remain at work.

Look back over the brief description of the Louisville shooter. Read more about his background if you can find it on the web. Do you see ANYTHING in his history as it was known to his supervisors that would have led them to conclude that his presence in the workplace might pose a threat? It’s fair to conclude that if the shooter had been a Federal employee whose removal had been proposed, he would have been retained in his regular position, in a Federal workplace, where he would be able to avoid the metal detectors at the entry to the worksite by waiving his employee credentials at the guard.

And if that guy happened to be a coworker of yours, where might you be today?

Folks, here at FELTG, we have big drums, medium-sized drums, and tiny little drums. We beat them on occasion because we have great respect for the good work done by most every Federal employee, and because we believe the civil service is a fair and efficient system for employing the career individuals who run our country. The inexcusable and obvious horrific situation potentially created by these regulations gets our loudest beats from our biggest drum. Why, oh why, these regulations are in place, given the clearly appalling potential outcomes and easy fixes, is simply beyond our understanding.

If you know who can change these regulations, or who can tweak your agency’s own interpretation of these regulations, please implore them to DO SOMETHING. What happened in that workplace in Louisville is going to happen again if we don’t act to stop it. [email protected]

[Editor’s note: The recording of Shana Palmieri’s recent virtual training event Assessing Risk and Taking Action is available for purchase. The session provides guidance on identifying signs of imminent violence, creating a risk assessment team, understanding personality traits and cognitive issues, responding to threats or violent acts, and much more. To bring this presentation live to your agency, email [email protected].]

Can an Agency Constrain Official Time for EEO Complainants?

, ,

By Deborah J. Hopkins, April 17, 2023

A few years ago, a client asked me what to do in this scenario: The employee did not show up to work for two weeks and did not respond to her supervisor’s phone calls, text messages, or emails. On the day the employee returned to work, the supervisor asked the employee where she had been. The employee said she had “been taking official time for my EEO complaints.”

EEOC’s regs at 29 CFR § 1614.605 establish that if the complainant “is an employee of the agency, she is entitled to a reasonable amount of official time, if otherwise on duty, to prepare the complaint and to respond to agency and EEOC requests for information … The agency is not obligated to change work schedules, incur overtime wages, or pay travel expenses to facilitate the choice of a specific representative or to allow the complainant and representative to confer.” [bold added]

There has been much litigation over what amount of official time is considered reasonable, and also over how much control an agency has over the complainant’s use of official time. EEOC recently addressed official time in Aline A. v. USDA/ARS, EEOC Appeal No. 2022003111 (Mar. 8, 2023). The case discusses EEOC’s long-held position that there’s not a set amount of official time designated for an EEO complaint. Also, the number of hours to which a complainant is entitled will vary based on factors including the complexity of the complaint, the agency’s mission, and the agency’s need to have its employees available to perform their normal duties on a regular basis.

Regardless of the details surrounding the complaint, “the Commission considers it reasonable for agencies to expect their employees to spend most of their time doing the work for which they are employed, so an agency may restrict the overall hours of official time afforded.” Referring to my client’s scenario above, we know reasonable does not include an AWOL employee claiming 80 hours after the fact, without making a request.

In Aline A., the complainant alleged the agency violated the law by denying her a reasonable amount of official time for her EEO complaint when:

  • On Aug. 5, 2019, she was denied six hours of overtime pay, for official time.
  • On Oct. 25, 2019, she requested three hours of official time and was denied.
  • On Dec. 19, 2019, management denied her sufficient time (six hours) to meet with her designated representative regarding her pending EEO complaint.

The agency’s position was that it did not violate the complainant’s right to official time because:

  • On Aug. 5, 2019, the supervisor stated the complainant claimed six hours of overtime for her EEO activity (premium pay) without pre-approval. The supervisor disapproved the overtime pay but provided the complainant with six hours of credit time.
  • On Oct. 25, 2019, the supervisor had already scheduled the complainant’s performance evaluation. He denied her request due to the conflict but approved three hours of official time for Oct. 30, 2019. (The complainant was scheduled for leave on Oct. 28 and 29, 2019.)
  • On Dec. 19, 2019, the complainant’s request for six hours of official time included four hours of driving and two hours for the meeting with the representative. The agency did not think it was reasonable to provide official time for all the travel, but still granted four hours of official time, to include one leg of travel.

The Commission sided with the agency on all three official time claims and found the complainant “did not establish that the Agency improperly denied her official time for her EEO activity.” Specifically on the Oct. 25 denial, the commission ruled: “[T]he Agency reasonably delayed Complainant’s request for three hours of official time to balance her need with business reasons,” namely the performance evaluation.

Other recent cases have discussed official time including:

  • Complainants are not entitled to unlimited officialEEO time, just because they request it. Jeanie G. v. USDA/ARS, EEOC No. 2021003820 (Feb. 28, 2023).
  • A supervisor requiring a complainant to obtain approval prior to every official timerequest does not violate 29 CFR Part 1614. Angela R. v. DOD/NGA, EEOC No. 2022002317 (Feb. 21, 2023).
  • A supervisor requiring advance requests of EEO meetings related to official time, when the supervisor does not ask details about where the complainant was specifically going and with whom the complainant was meeting, does not violate 29 CFR Part 1614. Bryan F. v. Army, EEOC No. 2022002206 (Feb. 16, 2023).

Hope this helps. [email protected]

Pay Attention: Avoid These Compensation Issues That Derail Settlement Agreements

, ,

By Barbara Haga, April 17, 2023

I’m wrapping up this series on settlement agreements with a couple of cases where the agency agreed to a condition regarding a pay matter that could not be legally done.

You can find my settlement agreement article from last month’s FELTG Newsletter here.

[Editor’s note: Did you miss the recent Drafting Enforceable and Legally Sufficient Settlement Agreements earlier this month? Then mark down this date – August 23 when it will be held again.

Overtime pay. In Farrell v. Interior, 86 MSPR 384 (MSPB 2000), the Board found that a mutual mistake regarding the rate of overtime pay rendered the settlement agreement unenforceable. Farrell, an employee of the Park Police, was downgraded from the position of lieutenant to a sergeant under 752 procedures.

The underlying issue in the case was Farrell’s authorship of a “parody” entitled “The Quest: The Final Passage Home.” This document insinuated that certain female officers were lesbians, identified some employees as “Moorish,” and contained sexually explicit passages. A copy of the document was placed in the inbox of one of the senior officers. An investigation by the Internal Affairs Office ensued. Farrell admitted he had written it at home, typed it on the computer at work, and distributed copies within the Police Department over several months.

To settle the case, the parties agreed that Farrell would receive back pay and benefits, the agency would pay $7,500 in attorney’s fees, and Farrell would retire at the end of his 27th year of service. Also, he would be retained in the sergeant position, but paid as a lieutenant for the remainder of his employment. The agency delivered on all provisions.

The sticking point was the settlement agreement also stated that he would be eligible for overtime pay. In the sergeant position, OT is be paid a rate of one and a half times his lieutenant pay, a difference of roughly $15 per hour.  While the number of hours, and thus the value of this difference, is not specifically identified in the decision, it must have been a considerable amount because this was the only issue raised in the enforcement proceedings.

Farrell argued before the Board that “he had entered into the settlement agreement only because he could replace the potential lost income from the demotion with overtime pay.”  Farrell also argued that the original representative who entered into the agreement understood the settlement to mean that overtime would be paid at one and a half times his lieutenant’s pay.

What went wrong? The agency was prohibited by law from paying the agreed-upon rate of overtime. The agency cited the section of the D.C. Code, which said that an individual paid at the rate of a lieutenant was only entitled to overtime at his basic hourly rate.

The agency argued they were in compliance because they had paid everything that they could, but the Board set aside the agreement. That led to an AJ decision in 2000, a Board decision in 2001, and finally a Federal Circuit decision in 2002 – all arising from what should have been a settled case.

While this was a Park Police case, the GS system has a similar limitation on rates of payment for overtime. An exempt employee who earns more than GS-10, step 1 may only be paid overtime at a rate the greater of:

  1. His or her hourly rate, or
  2. The hourly rate for a GS-10, step 1.

(This limitation does not apply to wage employees or non-exempt employees.)

Review OPM’s guidance on Title 5 overtime pay.

Pay retention. In Day v. Air Force, 78 MSPR 364 (MSPB 1998), the agency removed a GS-9 supervisory art specialist under 752 procedures. The settlement agreement cancelled the removal, provided back pay, and required withdrawal of the appeal. Then the agreement went off the rails. The agency agreed to assign the employee to a WG-7 position with GS-9 pay retention, step increases, and other adjustments at the GS-9 level.

There are so many problems here, it’s hard to know where to start.

First, the basics. Pay retention is paid under 5 CFR 536. 5 CFR 536.102(b) sets conditions when payment of grade or pay retention is prohibited. The first situation on the list is when the employee is reduced in grade or pay for personal cause or at the employee’s request. Given that Day was removed for cause and this alternative of a downgrade was reached to resolve the ensuing litigation, it would seem to me that pay retention was never appropriate to begin with. The Board didn’t dwell on this aspect of the case. There was another problem.

Under pay retention, an employee does not receive step increases. The individual’s pay is beyond the limit for the grade. It’s also important to note that an individual remains in pay retention basically until the pay scale catches up with them. They receive 50 percent of the annual cost of living increase each year. Again, contrary to the language in the agreement, Day could not receive “other adjustments at the GS-9 level.”

There was even discussion during the enforcement proceedings that, perhaps, the agency should give Day grade retention. Even if that were appropriate (it seems very clear it’s not appropriate, per OPM guidance), grade retention lasts only two years. Then the individual would go into pay retention, so the agency would be right back in the same conundrum then.

DoD has a useful plain language document on the ins and outs of grade and pay retention. 

Without understanding the fine points of how the wide variety of pay issues are handled, an advocate might be lured into agreeing to something that is contrary to the pay laws in Title 5 just as the representatives in Farrell and Day did. To avoid this problem, make sure HR practitioners are available to assist agency representatives with settlement details so the provisions agreed to can actually be implemented.

 

The Good News: Here’s the Secret to Handling Problem Employees

, ,

By Ann Boehm, April 17, 2023

As a FELTG instructor, I regularly hear comments from class participants. Supervisors often tell me they are frustrated by what they perceive as lack of support from the Human Resources (HR) professionals. But HR professionals often tell me that they aren’t psychic, and they cannot help supervisors who do not reach out to them and seek their help in dealing with a problem employee.

What we have here is a communication problem. Effective communication requires both talking and listening. And at its core, in the Federal personnel world, effective communication requires the supervisors and the HR professionals to listen and hear with the common goal of taking care of the agency’s mission by taking care of problem employees.

How do we improve the communication between managers and HR?

Let’s start with the talking. Supervisors need to reach out to HR when they first start realizing they have a problem employee.

Don’t delay – odds are that the problem is not going to go away. Allowing the situation to fester just leads to frustration, and even may complicate the process for handling the problem employee.

In addition, supervisors need to explain not just the issues with the employee, but how it impacts the supervisor’s job, their employees’ ability to perform their jobs, and – here’s that word again – MISSION. Supervisors, you cannot expect HR professionals to understand your workplace. They support people in very diverse areas of the agency. You need to educate them about the practical impact of the problem employee’s actions. And fundamentally, you need to ask them to help you.

Let’s now turn to listening. HR professionals, please listen to the supervisors and try your level best not to respond with, “You can’t do that.” You need to appreciate that when the supervisor comes to you, they are frustrated with the employee. You need to focus on how you can help them.

It’s highly likely that the supervisor will not understand the intricacies of discipline or performance in the Federal government, and their initial instincts may be a wee bit off base.

But HR professionals need to work with them to get them to a place of comporting with the law and still taking action to take care of the problem. Instead of “You can’t do that,” think about what steps can be taken to get on the path to successfully handling the problem employee. It’s your turn to educate them.

This sounds very simple, right? And in practice it should be. So, let’s review:

1) Supervisors, reach out to HR as soon as you realize you are having problems with the employee. Educate them on not just the employees’ problems, but the impact on your workplace.

2) HR professionals, use your skills to help the supervisor get on the right path to properly handling the problem employee. Appreciate the supervisor’s frustration and think creatively about the best way forward.

3) Supervisors and HR professionals, realize that the ultimate goal is to ensure the agency’s mission is fulfilled.

I know I’m an eternal optimist, but I truly believe that better communication is an easy way to handle problem employees.

And that’s Good News. [email protected]

Forecast Calls for Category 1-3 Harassment: What Will You Do?

, ,

By Dan Gephart, April 17, 2023

It’s no secret the current administration wants the Federal workplace to be more inclusive. A key to achieving that goal is rooting out harassment. This is not a new concern. Several years ago, agencies started their own anti-harassment units, which don’t fall always under the auspices of its EEO Office. These anti-harassment teams are charged with limiting harassment of all types – even those that don’t result in legitimate claims of discrimination.

For years now, the EEOC has been emphasizing the need to address the broader range of harassment, noting time and again that without an exhaustive anti-harassment policy, agencies cannot be model EEO employers. You’d be hard-pressed to find an agency today that doesn’t have some type of anti-harassment policy.

Yet too many people still think harassment is solely an EEO issue. Not us here at FELTG. If you’ve attended any of our courses that address harassment, you’ve heard FELTG President Deborah Hopkins and other instructors say quite clearly: Harassment is misconduct. It must be addressed, whether it has led to an EEO complaint or not.

And whether alleged harassment goes through the EEO process or not, an investigation will likely be required. FELTG offers numerous opportunities to improve your investigations skillset over the next few months, beginning with the three-day virtual program Conducting Effective Harassment Investigations April 25-27. Workplace Investigations Week will be held August 14-18, and the two-hour training Misconduct Investigations: Get Them Right From the Start takes place on July 25. Also, be on the lookout for the official announcement soon of Bad Detective: The Mistakes That Hamper Agency Investigations with special guest presenter Roslyn Brown. That session will take place on Aug. 4, as part of FELTG’s annual Federal Workplace: Accountability, Challenges, and Trends event.

Let’s look at different categories of workplace harassment. The actual steps you need to take after each type of harassment are different. Regardless, take all harassment claims seriously and act promptly.

Category 1 – EEO harassment. An allegation has been made that someone has engaged in harassing behavior due to the complaining employee’s protected category. (To recap: Those protected categories are sex, race, color, national origin, religion, genetic information, disability, age, participation in protected activity). Could this be a legitimate complaint of EEO discrimination? It very well may be, but at this point, it’s still too early to tell. The person alleging harassment has 45 days to make contact with an EEO counselor. But you will need to investigate right away, whether they contact a counselor or not.

Category 2 – Actionable EEO harassment. Once the formal complaint is filed and the EEO office accepts the claim, the agency is on the clock. It’s time for a prompt, thorough investigation to determine the facts: was there unwelcome conduct, based on a protected category, so severe or pervasive it created a hostile, intimidating or abuse work environment?

Category 3 – Non-EEO harassment. Is it just me or does it just seem like bullies are pouring out of the woodwork lately? Mocking an individual’s work habits. Giving co-workers unflattering and unwanted nicknames. Pestering a peer repeatedly with requests to go on a date. Sometimes it’s hard to fathom the sheer gall of these bullies.

That’s not to say that these actions never meet the elements of proof for EEO harassment. They may. But smart bullies (there are a few) seem to know how to stop short of those requirements. Yet just because these actions may not lead to a legitimate EEO complaint doesn’t mean they should be overlooked.

Other examples of non-EEO actions to keep an eye on are conduct that is unprofessional, threatening, intimidating, violent, and disturbing.

Category 4 – Not harassment. The final category covers actions that are not harassment, despite what employees say. Several agency officials have told us of an increase in complaints lodged against supervisors for actions that are, quite frankly, what you’d expect a supervisor to do.

  • Assign work.
  • Set deadlines.
  • Create a work schedule.
  • Assess performance or providing feedback.
  • Manage work groups.
  • Set a dress code.

Just because an employee disagrees with his supervisor’s management style does not make a case of harassment. If the actions listed above are “exercised in a reasonable and professional manner,” they are not harassment. The same goes for any other actions supervisors have the right to take based on 5 USC 301-302. Deb Hopkins’ article from a few months ago addressed these faux claims.

Here’s the takeaway: Do whatever you can to prevent harassing conduct in the workplace. If you do that, harassment won’t happen, right? No, of course harassment is still going to happen from time to time. And when it does, know your options and responsibilities to correct the conduct before it happens again.

Also, it sure wouldn’t hurt to get to know your agency’s anti-harassment policy a little better. [email protected]

And Now a Word With … EEOC AJ Meghan Droste

,

By Dan Gephart, April 11, 2023

Long-time members of FELTG Nation recall Meghan Droste as an engaging instructor and writer, who could break down difficult subjects into easy-to-understand guidance. At the same time, she’d often leave this FELTG Newsletter Editor with an earworm or two.

Ms. Droste, now an administrative judge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, will kick off Day 1 of FELTG’s upcoming Emerging Issues in Federal Employment Law event, presenting Avoiding Pitfalls: Advice from an EEOC AJ on Tuesday, April 18, 2023, at 10:30 am ET.

[The theme for Day 1 is Lessons Learned and we’ll also have presentations from former MSPB Member Tristan Leavitt and FELTG’s own Joseph Schimansky. Check out the full agenda. Register [PDF, 1.58 MB] for one session, one day, the whole event or any combination of sessions – it’s up to you.]

We recently caught up with Ms. Droste to discuss her career transition and what she plans to cover in her session on April 18.

DG: As a practicing attorney, you were very familiar with the EEO process. Did anything surprise you or was there anything about the process you didn’t realize until after you became an administrative judge?

MD: When I first started it was very interesting to see all of the work that is done “behind the scenes” — everything that AJs have to juggle that the parties don’t see. But I think the most surprising thing was the number of self-represented, or pro se, complainants who we see in the Washington Field Office. As a complainant’s representative I of course did not have any involvement in those types of cases, and even when I represented a Federal agency, I often encountered representatives on the other side. The process is meant to be accessible for self-represented complainants and it has been very interesting to see just how many there are.

DG: What is the most common misunderstanding about the EEO process?

MD: I think one of the most common misunderstandings, from both complainants and agencies, is an assumption that the hearings process is informal and not as serious as litigation in Federal court. AJs don’t wear robes or sit in courtrooms, but we still issue orders and set schedules that the parties have to abide by. It seems that some parties don’t understand that and think that deadlines are optional or that they can ignore their obligations that we set out in our orders or are in the EEOC’s Management Directive 110.

DG: What’s your advice to parties who are new to the EEO process on the importance of the initial conference?

MD: It is so important for the parties to be prepared for an initial conference (IC). By the time I hold an IC, I have reviewed the Report of Investigation, the parties’ Preliminary Case Information submissions, and anything else that they have uploaded to the Public Portal/FedSep; I expect the parties to have done the same and to be familiar with their case. The parties should be ready to address all of the topics outlined in the Acknowledgment Order and answer any questions I have for them about the record or their discovery needs. If they aren’t prepared, it slows down the IC and can result in a party waiving its right to raise an issue or object to something that I cover during the IC.

DG: You will be discussing the importance of civility in the EEO process at Emerging Issues in Federal Employment Law. Can you provide an example where lack of civility negatively impacted a party’s position in settlement or litigation?

MD: One way that this comes to my attention is when parties are filing a motion for an extension or a motion to compel. I generally do not see the parties’ interactions with each other, but when it comes time to file a motion that requires the party to note the opposing parties’ objections to the motion or to refer to the parties’ discussions about discovery, I see copies of correspondence between the parties as exhibits.

It’s easy to see when the parties are being civil to one another and when they are not. It’s also easy to see how, as the parties become more heated, they are less willing to work with each other to resolve routine issues. This impacts the issue they are filing the motion for and can make any later settlement discussions more difficult, if not impossible, as each side digs into their own positions and are unwilling to compromise.

DG: Agencies often miss the mark in their pleadings. What’s the most common problem with pleadings and how do you suggest that problem be fixed?

MD: Two things come to mind right away, and both are easy for agencies to fix. The first is exceeding the page limits for motions or otherwise failing to follow the requirements I set out in the Case Management Order (CMO). I remind the parties during every IC to review the CMO thoroughly because each AJ does things a little differently. Despite this, I can always tell when a party has failed to do so, and it can have a real impact for them. For example, if a party exceeds the page limit, I stop reading the motion at the last allowable page. I don’t give any consideration to any argument that comes after the page limit. The second common problem is allowing the agency’s arguments to creep into the statement of facts. The statement of facts should be, as it sounds, just the facts. An agency loses some credibility with me in the summary judgment process if it tries to spin the facts rather than presenting them without argument.

Have your own questions for Judge Droste? Register now for Emerging Issues in Federal Employment Law. [email protected]

EEOC Report Sparks Conversation About Offer of Resolution, Settlement

,

By Bob Woods, April 4, 2023

The EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations (OFO) recently published an article discussing the “offer of resolution” (29 C.F.R. 1614.109(c)), which they refer to as an “often overlooked tool for agencies to settle EEO complaints.”
For those of you who are relatively new to practice before the EEOC, you may not realize that this “tool” has been available since 1999, when it replaced the “Offer of Full Relief” settlement option (previously available pursuant to then-29 C.F.R. 1614.107(h)).

The principal difference between these tools is that if an agency “offer of resolution” is rejected and the EEOC subsequently awards a lesser remedy than was offered, the agency is relieved of paying costs and attorney fees incurred after the offer acceptance period, whereas if an agency’s offer of “Full Relief” was rejected by a complainant, the agency could dismiss the complaint.

At that point, the complainant could seek review from the EEOC. If the EEOC agreed that the offer contained all of the remedies to which the complainant would have been entitled if the complainant prevailed on the allegations of discrimination, they would sustain the dismissal. See Henderson v. Navy, EEOC Appeal No. 01984538 (EEOC 1999).

The premise of this remedial provision was that it was unnecessary to adjudicate a complaint if the agency was willing to provide full relief. However, with the advent of compensatory damages, provided for by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, it became increasingly difficult to determine whether the Agency’s offer of compensatory damages would be considered enough to constitute “Full Relief.” As a result, the EEOC eliminated the “Offer of Full Relief” from the list of reasons for dismissal provided in 29 C.F.R. 1614.107 and amended the provisions of 29 C.F.R. 1614.109 to include the provision for “Offers of Resolution.”

Fast forward a quarter of a century. The OFO notes that this tool is underutilized and suggests that its use should be revisited by agencies. This suggestion provides an excellent opportunity to review the topic of settlements in EEO cases, something I’ll be covering in the April 12 virtual training Drafting Enforceable and Legally Sufficient Settlement Agreements.

My colleagues at FELTG asked me the below questions and my answers follow:

What are your thoughts about the use of the Offer of Resolution?

I agree the offer of resolution is probably underutilized, but I recognize it can be difficult to calculate and may involve more than an agency might be willing to offer. These offers, in particular, require a thorough analysis of the evidence and the existing EEOC awards of remedies provided in similar cases. This means the agency must ask the complainant for specific evidence to support their claim for compensatory damages and then use that evidence to try to determine its validity and how it will be assessed by the EEOC.

Offers of resolution should be made anytime the agency makes this thorough assessment and believes they are offering full relief or in situations where they believe they have offered full relief but the complainant and her/his attorney refuse to accept the offer and continue to demand additional compensation. In such cases, the agency has nothing to lose in making the offer or resolution. If the EEOC awards the same or lesser relief, the agency obtains some relief in the form of lower reimbursements for costs and attorney fees incurred after the rejection of the offer of resolution. Alternatively, if the EEOC awards greater relief, the agency is in no worse position with regard to reimbursements for costs and attorney fees than it would have been had it not made the offer of resolution. The OFO article describes the intent of the provision “ … is to encourage agencies to avoid costly EEO administrative litigation and to make complainants consider whether continuing with the EEO process would be in their best interests.”

Can you discuss the confidentiality aspect of settlement discussions?

It’s well settled by EEO law that settlement negotiations are confidential and privileged. In fact, the same holds true in the ADR process as well as in judicial proceedings and before many other adjudicative bodies. This includes settlement proposals made or discussed, as well as statements made during the course of negotiations. The reason for this policy is to enable the parties to speak freely when exploring potential options for resolution without fear of those discussions being used against them in future proceedings/litigation. MD-110, Chapter 2, Section IX(C).

Some Federal supervisors or leaders see settlement as indicating a flaw in a case, or as taking the easy way out. What would you like those people to know about settling Federal sector employment disputes?

While this sentiment is somewhat understandable, it often misses legitimate interests involved in settling a case. Every EEO complaint (starting at the pre-complaint phase) deserves an honest, open-minded assessment of the particular circumstances of the concerns/allegations presented. Supervisors and leaders need to be educated on the process generally and on the pros and cons of settlement of the particular case. It may be there is a “flaw in the case.” It may be there is evidence of discrimination or there may be weaknesses in the evidence supporting the management action, including issues of credibility of witnesses. In fact, if management did do something wrong, whether or not it constitutes discrimination, it needs to be corrected as quickly and as thoroughly as possible. Even in cases that don’t appear to have these “flaws,” there may be very good reasons to resolve the matter via settlement.

As we often teach, the best outcomes occur when resolution is freely arrived at by all parties. There are no guarantees in litigation. Early resolution often results in a more amicable return to the working relationship and returns the parties to where they can focus on mission/career. It also enables them to get an unpleasant experience over with before the case can swallow their lives. Settlements do not require any admission of fault. Additionally, the earlier the resolution, the lower the direct and indirect costs.

Are there certain types of cases you would recommend not settling. If so, why?

In my opinion, settlement should be seriously considered/explored in most (maybe even all) cases. Once the circumstances and evidence have been thoroughly reviewed, the main question will be what, if any, resolution terms short of litigation might satisfy the interests of both parties. Typically, agencies try to support the prerogatives of supervisors and will first explore alternatives that provide that support. Assuming a thorough review, I would not recommend settling any case where the evidence supports the agency position and the complainant refuses to compromise on their demands for relief that are disproportionate to the bounds of that analysis. Likewise, I would oppose settling on terms that exceed that to which the complainant would be entitled if they prevailed on the allegations of discrimination.

Instead of trying to capture the types of cases for which I would not recommend settlement, I’d prefer to identify some terms that I would argue are inappropriate. For example, there are times when a supervisor just wants to be rid of a “bad employee” and is willing to agree to terms that would make this employee someone else’s problem (e.g., a reassignment or accepting a “clean paper” resignation). If this is truly a “bad employee,” it is the supervisor’s responsibility to hold them accountable and not let them move on. To accept such terms would be a disservice to both the gaining supervisor/activity/agency and to the taxpayer. It also allows the “bad employee” to continue their misconduct or unacceptable performance in the new environment. Likewise, a settlement agreement should not be used to shield a bad management official. If the evidence suggests wrongdoing on the part of management, corrective action is appropriate. Failure to hold management accountable, like failure to hold the “bad employee” accountable, sends a bad message to the workforce, violates the agency’s legal obligations, and enables the manager to continue to engage in similar conduct.

What questions do you have for me? Join us on April 12 for the answers. [email protected]

And Now a Word With … FLRA CADRO’s Michael Wolf (Part II)

,

By Dan Gephart, May 27, 2923

Michael Wolf, Director, Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (CADRO)

In the first of this two-part article, we talked to the Federal Labor Relations Authority’s Michael Wolf, who is director of the Authority’s Collaboration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (CADRO) program about that program’s success. [Editor’s note: Visit here to learn more about CADRO and its services.]

Wolf described CADRO’s style of mediation as “situational” as opposed to “facilitative or evaluative or some other label.” The key, per Wolf, was that the “parties define success.”

We wondered how CADRO’s approach applied to agencies trying to resolve disputes internally. [For more on settling disputes, join FELTG on April 12 for Drafting Enforceable and Legally Sufficient Settlement Agreements.] We caught up to Wolf in between mediations and picked his brain on this important topic.

DG: What do you think is the biggest obstacle to resolving disputes?

MW: It depends. I realize that is not really an answer, but there is no other simple response that is also accurate. Most disputes we see in CADRO erupt from a set of unique causes, characteristics, and obstacles to resolution. From the standpoint of a third party who has no stake in the outcome, we help party representatives identify their obstacles and then help them adopt what they believe to be the most effective way to overcome those obstacles. This approach tends to result in parties that are more invested in making the outcome successful when compared to an outcome imposed by an outside source of authority such as a judge or arbitrator.

DG: What physical environment best creates an atmosphere for successful mediation?

MW: With rare exception, it is best for the physical environment to enable the mediator and participants to be free of unnecessary distractions, engage with an appropriate level of confidentiality, communicate effectively, utilize joint and separate sessions, consult with sources of information and authority when necessary, and be able to fulfill external responsibilities when required.

  • The location should be reasonably available and accessible.
  • Cost should not be a factor in whether a party is adequately represented.
  • The space should not create a perception of favoritism or bias.
  • The need to work outside of “normal” business hours might be a factor.
  • No party should feel unfairly disadvantaged by the physical environment, and it should be compatible with the mediator’s style, methods, and skillset.

I’m sure there are other considerations, but these are what immediately come to mind. I view available options based on five potential methods of engagement:

  • Synchronous and in-person
  • Synchronous and remote
  • Asynchronous and in-person
  • Asynchronous and remote
  • Hybrid – a combination of synchronous and asynchronous, in-person and remote

Each of these methods of engagement give rise to a different set of considerations concerning the physical environment. For example, if one or more participants is expected to engage remotely, the impact of differential technology skills, equipment, support, and access could affect both process and outcome of the mediation.

DG: You’ve been an advocate for the appropriate use of technology in mediation.

MW: I’ve been an advocate for the appropriate use of technology in mediation since at least the late 1990s when I was the FMCS Director of Mediation Technology Services. Today, CADRO mediation and settlement conferences would not be possible without a very heavy reliance on technology and remote engagement, both synchronous and asynchronous. I am not a believer in the use of technology to repair fractured relationships, but I have found it highly effective when used appropriately to mediate labor disputes.

At the same time, I tend to be “old school.” I prefer in-person engagement for disputes that are complex, serious, and consequential. But I also recognize that in-person engagement can enable disputants to misunderstand each other as well as understand each other. At times, in-person engagement can cause a disputant to feel threatened and therefore become defensive, maybe misinterpret what is said and done, and become a barrier to success.

Sometimes mediators can control the physical environment. Other times, we have more control over the factors that impact and result from the physical environment. A skilled mediator should be able to spot the issues on the fly and make necessary adjustments when needed.

DG: Can you name a few steps that someone in a dispute can do to bring two sides together – even if they are on one of the sides?

MW: Let me start with a few of the things I suggest that person should not do. They should:

  • Not pretend to be neutral if they are linked to one of the disputants.
  • Not try to determine or shape outcome.
  • Do their best to not be influenced by judgements or assumptions about the disputants or their issues.
  • Avoid the urge to offer advice (except about process).
  • Not try to save either disputant from themselves.
  • Actively avoid shifting the balance of power between disputants.
  • Not try to shape the disputants’ “truth.”
  • Avoid becoming so frustrated that they feel compelled to adjudicate the matter.
  • Not reveal matters shared with them in confidence.

Above all else, “do no harm.”

Now a few ideas about what they might do to help. First and most importantly, listen actively! Second, help them agree on a problem statement that is in the form of a question to which they both seek the answer. If they can’t agree on the question, it is unlikely they will agree on an answer. Jointly attacking the question can also help them avoid attacking each other. Third, help each person first explore separately and then share jointly why they care so much about the answer to that question. Write down the reasons they care (bullet list, not long paragraphs). Help them compare and contrast what they care about to see what their lists have in common. Generally, they will find it easier to agree on solutions if they share a common list of reasons why they care about the answer to the question.

Fourth, facilitate joint brainstorming of possible answers to the question. Encourage both to offer at least several ideas. The more the better. Get them to think outside the box. Discourage criticism of each other’s ideas. Try to write down every idea, even the ones that seem wacky. Encourage them to build on each other‘s ideas. Then discover the ideas that rise to the top and help them explore whether one or possibly a combination of ideas might be worth trying.

If they seem to agree on one or more ideas as a path forward, help them develop an action plan to implement the ideas. Follow up in several days and then again in several weeks. Help with any operational issues. Refer the matter to someone with expertise and experience if necessary.

[email protected]