Civil Service Law and Kavanaugh

,

By William Wiley, October 2, 2018

As I watched the Ford-Kavanaugh Supreme Court Justice nominee hearings recently, I was struck by the lack of standards for the process. In case you’ve been in a cave for the past week, the issue of the hearings was whether nominee Kavanaugh had engaged in sexual misconduct with Dr. Ford when they were both teenagers some 35 years ago.

The scene was riveting. Dr. Ford testified consistently and fearfully for five hours as to her memory of a party at which Brett Kavanaugh tried to sexually assault her. Nominee Kavanaugh testified loudly and angrily about how unfair the nomination process had become. Dr. Ford swore that she was 100% certain that the attack occurred as she had described it. Judge Kavanaugh swore that it did not. A classic he-said she-said situation.

Subsequent to the two testimonies, the Senators and media pundits were flummoxed, emotional, and all over the place as to what to do. Who was telling the truth? Where’s the proof either way? THERE IS NO PROOF! OH, YES THERE IS!! Such anger, hostility, and bewilderment as to what really happened that night. Geez, you’d think that the future of America was at stake or something in what is really just a personnel matter.

The more I heard the Smart People talk, the more it became clear to me that our civil service system is designed to determine the truth much better than what the members of the committee and the public commentators are doing.

First, there’s the matter of exactly what does “proof” mean? That concept was thrown around a lot, and it certainly is the heart of the matter. But if you listened closely, you came to realize that there was no generally accepted definition of the concept of proof applicable to the event at issue at the hearing.

Those readers who have attended our civil service law seminars know that there are three levels of proof applicable in personnel matters in the executive branch:

Substantial Evidence. This is the lowest burden of proof in a federal personnel situation. Most commonly, we use it when deciding whether an agency has proven that a poor performer should be fired. A layperson might say that its meaning is that “maybe” the employee was a poor performer, although reasonable others might disagree. Hard to get lower than that.

Preponderant Evidence. This is the burden of proof most commonly used in personnel situations because the most common personnel situations involve discipline and discrimination matters. In these sorts of cases, the agency or the employee prove their case if they can show that “it is likely” that the claims are valid; e.g., it is likely that the employee engaged in the charged misconduct that was the basis for the removal.

Clear and Convincing Evidence. The civil service laws have reserved this highest proof burden in personnel matters for the most beloved group of federal employees: whistleblowers. If an agency fires a whistleblower, it must leave the judge with a “firm belief” that the misconduct occurred, not that it just “probably” occurred as the preponderant level would suggest. The courts have defined this as a “heavy burden.”

Just think what kind of difference it would make in the Ford-Kavanaugh controversy if the Senate would simply decree what the burden of proof was for Dr. Ford’s claims:

  • If substantial proof is all that is needed, the White House had better start looking for a replacement nominee. I think that few clear thinkers could deny that the event at the party 35 yeas ago “might’ have happened. Dr. Ford’s memory seems burned into her brain, graphic in detail, and consistent in description. No, we can’t say that for sure it happened, but that is not the evidence standard when we say that the proof expectation is only substantial.
  • If clear and convincing proof is necessary, Nominee Kavanaugh can start getting fitted for a nicer robe. Some of us might really want to believe Dr. Ford out of compassion for her situation and deep sympathy for someone who has so obviously been traumatized. But aside from those feelings, to my read it is difficult to say that the objective evidence has satisfied the “heavy burden” requirement.
  • If preponderant proof is necessary, then we have to decide who is telling the truth: Ford or Kavanaugh.

And, of course, there’s the rub. Senator after Senator, talking head after talking head, has whined and bemoaned that Dr. Ford cannot be believed because there is no corroborating evidence. It’s just her word against his. In the mind of the uninitiated, without corroborating evidence, we cannot have proof at the preponderant level.

MSPB had a similar problem back in its earliest years as an adjudicating body. A number of cases arose in which the removal on appeal hinged on a determination as to which of two witnesses was telling the truth. Some of the Board’s judges (“presiding officials,” back in the day), tried to dodge the bullet by ruling that as they could not determine who was telling the truth, the preponderant evidence level had not been reached. Well, the Board members would have none of that. They reminded the judges that they were being paid to conclude who was being truthful and who was not. So, they remanded those cases to the bullet-dodging judges and told them to do their jobs of adjudicating. In doing so, the Board created a tool that the Senators could very well use today to make the credibility call between Ford and Kavanaugh.

We’ll describe and apply that tool in a later article. We will no doubt be too late to help with this particular nomination, but maybe the next time something like this comes along, the more clear-headed Senators will find it more useful than gut-based truth-determination.  [email protected]

Homicide in the Workplace

,

By William Wiley, September 25, 2018

I’ve always been a worrier. Even in my class picture from the second grade, you can see that I have a lot on my mind and the weight of the world on my shoulders. There are so many rules in life and someone has to be concerned that we all follow them. Even at the ripe old age of seven, I somehow knew that would become my mission in life.

These days, one of my recurrent worries is for the safety of those of you in our FELTG Nation. Did you notice last week that within 24 hours, there were two (2) (!!) workplace shooting sprees? As was reported in the Washington Post, on Thursday, a Rite Aid employee in Maryland entered her regular work space, shot and killed three coworkers, wounded three others, and then shot and killed herself. The day before, an employee of a Wisconsin software company opened fire in his workplace, wounding three coworkers before killing himself. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that every Monday through Friday, every week of the year, two people are killed in a workplace by a coworker. These recent shootings will become part of those statistics in next year’s report.

I think it’s fair to say that the shooters in these two situations must have been under a lot of stress. Happy employees don’t usually open fire on people they work with. The Rite Aid employee was described by coworkers as “normally, a nice person.” There must have been something very stressful that pushed her over the edge.

Think about your federal workplace for a minute. Which of the following events do you think would be the most likely to drive one of your coworkers to kill somebody?

  1. Having someone steal your afternoon snack from the lunchroom refrigerator.
  2. Receiving a “Fully Satisfactory” performance rating when that no-good employee next to you got a rating of “Exceptional.”
  3. Having your boss propose to upper management that you be fired.

I will yield that any one of these events could result in a fragile person reaching for his Glock. Those afternoon snacks can be very important. However, I think we would all agree that, relatively speaking, receiving notice that you are about to lose your job has to be one of the most stressful events that might occur in a government workplace.

Acknowledging that stress is often related to workplace violence, and that a proposed removal is just about the most stressful event one would expect in a government agency, which of the following options do you think that an agency should engage in when proposing to fire an employee?

  1. Leaving the employee to perform his regular job for a month, where he has access to all those important government documents you keep locked away on your hard drives and daily contact with multitudes of coworkers and agency clients;
  2. Hiring an armed guard to accompany the employee for a month while he performs his regular duties; or
  3. Removing the employee from the workplace just as soon as you give him the proposed removal, barring his return by confiscating his government credentials, and blocking him from accessing the agency’s computer system from his home computer.

If you did not select number three, above, you are either more brave or more foolish than you should be. As Hamlet would tell you, “Get thee to a nunnery.” There’s safety there and you cannot reproduce.

In December 2016, Congress passed a law that allows supervisors to immediately remove employees from the workplace on the presentation of a notice of proposed removal. As a separate law requires that the employee be paid for 30 days subsequent to a proposed removal, Congress provided that the employee’s pay status in this situation would be paid Notice Leave. To invoke this Notice Leave period and remove the employee from the workplace, the agency has to certify that doing so was the best option of those available, and that NOT placing the employee on Notice Leave “jeopardizes a government interest.” I think it’s fair to say that keeping employees alive and avoiding a potential workplace shooting promotes a nice valid “government interest.”

When the law became effective in December 2016, OPM was given 270 days to issue regulations. Unfortunately, some agencies took the incorrect position that they could not utilize Notice Leave until OPM issued its regulations. In those agencies, employees are being kept in the workplace after notice of a proposed removal, endangering lives and property for no good reason. If OPM would just issue regulations that say that keeping an employee in the workplace after notice of a proposed removal by its very nature “jeopardizes a government interest,” then the potential for death and mayhem could be reduced substantially because agencies throughout government would implement Notice Leave routinely.

Well, the statutory deadline for OPM issuing regulations was a year ago this week. Happy anniversary, I guess. For reasons unfathomable to those of us interested in the safety of the civil service, this delay is an abomination. The comment period for OPM’s proposed regulations closed in the summer of 2017. It already has all it needs to issue final regulations and take a strong step toward protecting federal employees from a stressed-out coworker. Somewhere in that big building known as OPM headquarters – 1900 E Street NW, Washington, DC – sits a desk with the draft final regulations awaiting action. Somebody in that organization has the ability and the authority to move these regulations along, to take a major step toward reducing the chance of a newspaper story about a workplace shooter in a federal building.

If you happen to know who that somebody is, please let him or her know that this is life and death stuff. These regulations could save a life. Your life. And maybe even your contractor’s life (me). Help this young man in the picture above change his frown to a smile. When you’re in the second grade, you never imagine that a federal agency just doing its job could make you happy. [email protected]

MSPB Nominees no More

,

By William Wiley, September 20, 2018

Dear FELTG Nation-

It is with a heavy heart that we inform you that our super-secret internal sources report that the Senate Homeland Security Committee has advised the White House that it will not act on the nominations of the three new members of the US Merit Systems Protection Board before the end of the current session. That means that the nominations will be returned to the administration without a vote and the nomination process will have to begin all over with a new Senate in January.

Our FELTG unofficial account tells us that we are now up to about 1,300 pending appeals, ready to be issued, with back pay accruing every day. By next year, we will be in the 1,600s.

Add to this that the current remaining member, Acting Chairman Mark Robbins, turns into a political pumpkin at midnight on March 1. His term will expire, and he cannot be renewed or held over any more. Unless a miracle occurs in February, on that date, the Board will be without any members for the first time in history.

Any agency’s demise diminishes me, because I am involved in the civil service; and therefore, never send to know for whom the nomination folds; it folds for thee. [email protected]

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]

Why Not an Administrative Jury?

, ,

By William Wiley, September 19, 2018

This is the first part of a three-part series.

In our FELTG seminars, we sometimes have to explain the difference between the two burdens of proof relevant in our business of civil service law: substantial and preponderant evidence.

To fire someone from a government position for misconduct, we have to support the action by a preponderance of the evidence. To fire that same person for poor performance, we need support the action by only a substantial evidence, a lower burden of proof.

Our lucky friends at the VA have the blessing of needing only substantial evidence.

Federal regulations define preponderant evidence to mean that there is enough proof to conclude it is more likely than not that the employee engaged in the charged misconduct and otherwise deserves to be fired. 5 CFR 1201.56(c) and 5 CFR 1201.4(q). For substantial evidence, an adjudicator has to conclude that a reasonable person might conclude that there’s enough proof to warrant removal, not that a reasonable person necessarily would conclude that removal is warranted. 5 CFR 1201.56(c)(1) and 5 CFR 1201.4(p). In comparison, the burden of proof required to throw somebody in jail for a crime in our country most of us know is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yeah, these are nice lawyer terms. Lawyers love to dance around on the head of a legal pin arguing what these terms mean. But what do they mean in terms that a normal person would understand? Well, here at FELTG, we’ve come up what we think is a pretty darned good analogy that anyone can understand. Perhaps not as eloquent as the regulatory definitions, here’s how we see the difference among the three.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt:  This one is easy. In most every state on our country and in the federal courts, to find someone guilty of a capital crime, 12 jurors need to agree that a crime has been committed. If 1 of the 12 disagrees, we do not have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, we can use 12 jurors as a benchmark for the other burdens of proof.

Preponderant Evidence:  We’re looking for a more likely than not standard using our jury as an avatar. Given that 6 of 12 jurors would be perfectly balanced, and we need a bit more than that, 7 of 12 would be a good number. So if we charged someone with misconduct, if 7 of 12 of his peers would conclude that he deserves to be fired, then we’d have a preponderance of the evidence.

Substantial Evidence:  We know that his has to be less than preponderant evidence. We also know that the courts have defined substantial evidence as “a grain more than a scintilla.” I have no idea what a scintilla looks like, and a grain is pretty darned tiny. Therefore, being generous, I would say that to have substantial evidence, we would need three maybe four jurors to conclude that a performance removal was warranted.

We’re quite proud of this analogy as a teaching tool. No, there’s never been a court or a board that has stated the burdens in a similar manner, but we hereby give notice that this language is hereby released from our copyrighted© protections thereby freeing any of you adjudicators out there to use it. With all due respect, it’s a lot more relatable than a line like a “grain more than a scintilla” to most of us normal humans (yeah, I’m talking to you, Chief Justice Roberts).

With us in the middle of rethinking the civil service protections these days, it recently dawned on us that maybe this model would serve as an option to get us out of the quagmire of employee appeals, complaints, and grievances. Yes, we could change the law. But rather than waiting for that possibility to happen, what if we set up an alternative system that would tempt employees to forgo their appeal/grievance/complaint rights in exchange for an alternative resolution to their dispute?

And that’s when we got the idea of an administrative jury.

“But, Bill, how would that work?”

Ah, dear reader, I guess you’ll have to look for our next article giving the details. See, we don’t want you to ever stop reading and attending FELTG. That’s why we build in little cliff hangers like this one, to keep you interested. [email protected]

Michael Keaton, Burt Reynolds, and the FMLA

, ,

By Dan Gephart, September 19, 2018

Thanks to Facebook, I’m reminded of the birthday of that odd kid from sixth grade who had the massive nosebleed problems and carried a Land of the Lost lunchbox. However, Mark Zuckerberg’s programmers failed to remind me of a more important birthday last month — the FMLA’s 25th. That’s right, the Family and Medical Leave Act has been around for a quarter-century. President Clinton signed the bill into law in early 1993. Six months later – August 5, 1993 to be exact – the law went into effect.

The birthday snub aside, I have a lot of affection for the FMLA. Twenty-four years ago, I took advantage of the then-new law. It was three months after my second son was born, and my wife’s maternity leave was ending. She needed to get back to work. We couldn’t afford for either of us to lose our job. Unfortunately, our initial child-care plans fell through. Then our back-up plans fell through. And our back-up to the back-up plans.

After much deliberation, we decided I’d stay home for the next three months with our two sons – the oldest of whom had yet to reach age two. This could help buy time as we figured out another child care option with which we were comfortable. We’d be living on one salary, but only for a short time.

What a time it was! Those three months at home with our young sons are among the happiest of my life. I can’t begin to describe the immense joy I feel when I think about those days.

Still, I missed work and was happy to go back three months later. What didn’t bring me joy was some of my coworkers’ reactions upon my return. While Michael Keaton is awesome, the Mr. Mom jokes … not so much. I also didn’t appreciate the comments referring to my three months as a vacation. And if you really wanted to get on my bad side, all you had to do was ask what it was like “baby-sitting” for three months. People, it’s not baby-sitting if they are your own kids! Also, spending time with your kids or taking them out in public without your wife doesn’t necessarily make you a great dad. It makes you a dad.

[Stage direction: Dan steps off his soapbox.]

The FMLA has made a difference in people’s lives, whether it’s meant being able to spend time with critically ill parents, bond with newly born or adopted children, recover from a serious health condition, or care for a spouse injured during military service.

Of course, there are people who try to take advantage of the law. I asked my FELTG colleague Barbara Haga – the FMLA expert – for her favorite stories of FMLA misuse. She reminded me about the letter carrier who invoked FMLA because of a back problem that caused numbness in his left arm and left leg. During his FMLA time off, he played eight games in an out-of-state national softball tournament. When confronted about how he could play softball but not deliver mail, he testified that softball wasn’t really a physical sport. Oh, and he also used the time to travel to Alaska.

Barbara has a new FMLA case that she’s discussing in her classes: “A GS-9 medical technologist with the VA took FMLA to bond with his infant child but was found to have been working at a private clinic for some of that time. Needless to say, he was removed, and the removal was affirmed by the AJ.”

My personal favorite story of FMLA abuse involves the federal employee who took FMLA only to be discovered using his job-protected time off to act in a movie featuring the recently departed Bandit himself — Burt Reynolds.

It’s not just federal employees. The private sector stories are even more ludicrous. Employees have used FMLA to put on a new roof, do jail time, and finish Christmas shopping. In that last case, the employee’s doctor cited the employee’s need for “retail therapy.”

The overall benefits of FMLA outweigh the challenges. But man, there are some serious challenges. Employees misuse FMLA in the most creative ways possible. You are the gatekeeper, and it’s not an easy task.

As always, FELTG is here to help. Join us in early 2019 for the webinar series Too Sick to Work: Absence Due to Illness. Also, you can register early for Absence, Leave Abuse & Medical Issues Week, which takes place on March 25-29, 2019 in Washington, DC.  We have a  star-studded cast of leave experts — Deborah Hopkins, Katherine Atkinson, Meghan Droste, and the aforementioned Barbara Haga. [email protected]

Gender Disparities in Federal Sector Public Safety Occupations

, ,

By Meghan Droste, September 19, 2018

Summer is a slow time. I generally find that my office phone rings far less often during the summer and the pace of work is just a little different.  It appears that the same may hold true for EEOC decisions. Checking for recent decisions to write this article, I found that either the EEOC did not issue any last month, or the folks at Lexis are a bit behind in posting them. Either way, my search for an update for you all led me away from OFO decisions and instead to the EEOC’s June 2018 report Recruitment & Hiring Gender Disparities in Public Safety Occupations.  While it might not seem like a page turner from the title (which, I would also add, should refer to sex rather than gender) the report genuinely is interesting.

The EEOC examined employment data for 10 public safety position categories at 14 agencies. The positions included correctional officers, park rangers, fire protection and prevention, and border patrol agents. The agencies included the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The report examines both recent and historical hiring data for these positions at these agencies. The EEOC also conducted focus groups of representative female employees and individuals in the position to impact recruitment.

The Commission found a 1% decrease in the percentage of public safety positions held by women from 2012 to 2016, going from 14% to 13% across the relevant agencies.  Customs and Border Patrol had the lowest number of female employees in the examined positions, with women comprising only 5% of border patrol agents, and no women serving in border protection interdiction positions.  The Fish and Wildlife Service in contrast, received high praise from the EEOC. This agency, which I had the privilege of visiting last week, has implemented several outreach initiatives to recruit women.  Sixty-six percent of their park rangers are women, a number that exceeds those for other agencies and the overall numbers in similar non-federal positions.

After reviewing the data, the EEOC presented several recommendations for improving recruitment of women for public safety positions.  The suggested initiatives include expanding recruitment efforts to all-female colleges and universities, as well as increasing the visibility of female recruiters.  The Commission also suggested developing outreach programs for elementary, middle and high school students to encourage a wide range of children to consider careers in public safety.

The summer sadly is over and the pace of work is starting to pick up in my office in a noticeable way.  Even if you find yourself in the same position, I encourage you to take a few minutes to read the Commission’s report. [email protected]

Tips From the Other Side, Part 9

, ,

By Meghan Droste September 19, 2018

No one — at least no one I know — likes to get in trouble. It’s never fun to be caught in the act or to be called out for failing to meet expectations. When it looks like we have been caught, we tend to deflect: I didn’t do it; and if I did, it wasn’t really that bad; and no matter how bad it was, you can’t punish me for it.

From what I remember, this rarely worked when I was a child, and it certainly does not work when arguing a case. Unfortunately, it seems that several agencies missed this memo when it comes to arguing that the EEOC does not have the authority to issue monetary sanctions.

In case after case, the Commission has shot down variations of the same argument when it comes to monetary sanctions. Several agencies have argued that the EEOC does not have the authority to order a federal agency to pay money to a complainant as a form of sanction in the administrative process.

These arguments generally center on the idea of sovereign immunity — the principle that a party may not sue the government without its consent. Agencies assert that the federal government has not waived sovereign immunity in a way that would permit it to use public money to pay a sanction in connection with an order from the EEOC.

The argument that sovereign immunity prevents the Commission — both administrative judges and the Office of Federal Operations — from ordering an agency to pay monetary sanctions goes back to at least 2005 with the case of Matheny v. Department of Justice, EEOC Req. No. 05A30373 (Apr. 21, 2005). In at least 11 other cases, agencies have asserted the same argument, including as recently as in the Taylor Z. v. Department of the Army decision from July EEOC Pet. No. 0420160037 (July 26, 2018). In every case, the Commission has rejected this argument outright and concluded that it has the authority to issue these sanctions.

This is a losing argument. Trust me. I cannot envision any circumstance in which the Commission is going to suddenly reverse its position on this issue.  Please save yourself, and everyone else, the trouble and do not try this argument.  You’re not going to win and you will only succeed in wasting the time and resources of your agency, the complainant and the Commission.

If you have specific questions or topics you would like to see addressed in a future Tips from the Other Side column, email them to [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, 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, 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]

Summary Performance Ratings and PIP Initiation

, ,

By William Wiley, September 19, 2018

Here at FELTG, we invite seminar participants to address follow-up questions to us in case we were unclear in class, or simply if the old memory isn’t working too well on a particular day. The following is a question we received recently from an attendee in our famous and fabulous MSPB Law Week seminar. Check out our website for the next offering of that program in your neighborhood: www.FELTG.com.

The question:

Greetings!  Hope all is well.

I have a hypothetical question related to the training we recently had regarding firing employees who cannot perform acceptably in their positions.

During your training, you walked us through the benefit of not marking an employee as ‘Unacceptable’ and simply proceeding with the PIP.  Can you please explain that rationale again?

Thank you.

Our tried and true FELTG-answer:

No probelmo. Here’s the logic tree:

1 – If you PIP an employee, he cannot challenge your judgment that his performance is unacceptable. That determination and the PIP itself are outside the grievance and EEO complaint process (with the limited exception of reprisal and hostile environment complaints). He can challenge the result of the PIP if there is a failure to perform, but he cannot challenge the initiation of the evaluation period itself.

2 – If the employee fails the PIP, you fire him. He can then appeal to an MSPB judge who will most likely affirm the removal. The MSPB appeal takes three to four months for the judge to adjudicate the removal appeal, then we’re essentially done. There is a possible higher-level review by the Board and even by the courts, but the judge’s decision is usually upheld all the way through the appellate process.

3 – HOWEVER, if you give the employee an Unacceptable performance rating at the same time you PIP him, he can separately challenge that rating. He can file an EEO complaint, have your judgment that the performance was unacceptable investigated, get a Report of Investigation, file a formal complaint with EEOC, and eventually get a hearing before an EEOC judge and a decision as to whether the Unacceptable rating was justified. That process these days takes about four years.

If you give a rating commensurate with initiating the PIP, the eventual removal arguably could be set aside years later by some crazy EEOC judge ruling that the performance prior to the PIP was not unacceptable after all.

Trust me. You do not want this ugly mess on your hands. Just don’t rate him. Initiate the PIP and it’s a much more secure action. As we always teach, do no more than required by law when you are dealing with a problem employee. The more you do, the more you will have to be prepared to defend. And the more you have to defend, the greater is the chance that somebody somewhere in the review process will find fault with something you did.

If your CBA or agency’s stupid policy requires that a summary rating of record be given at the same time you initiate a performance evaluation period, then you are stuck. However, that’s hardly ever the case. Just initiate the PIP, wait 30 days, then propose to fire the employee if he does not perform to standard in all the elements of his performance.

This is sooooo easy if you know what you’re doing.