Social Feeds

Be sure to Like and Follow FEDmanager on Facebook and on Twitter for exclusive content and news stories affecting the federal community and tips on maximizing your federal career and advancing in the federal workforce.


Subscribe to our newsletter. It's FREE. Read our privacy policy

OSC Complaint Alleging Hatch Act Violation Was So Vague That Dismissal Was Proper, MSPB Rules

Written by FEDmanager on . Posted in Case Law Update

An Office of Special Counsel (OSC) complaint alleging a Hatch Act violation was so vague that dismissal was proper, the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board ("the Board") ruled last week.

In this case, OSC filed a complaint with the Board in December 2009 alleging that a federal employee violated the Hatch Act by engaging in political activity while on duty and while in a government building through the use of a government-owned computer. OSC's complaint described the time of the alleged offenses as "throughout 2008" and stated that the alleged offenses involved emails and the drafting of documents "directed toward the success of Barack Obama's candidacy for President." At the close of discovery, the employee filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the charging document was so vague and the discovery documents so voluminous and "undifferentiated" that the employee was left "to guess at the nature of the charges and the documents that were the factual basis for those charges." The MSPB administrative judge (AJ) agreed, holding that OSC had failed to place the employee "on notice that would enable him to draft responsive pleadings or prepare for trial." OSC filed a petition for review.

In last week's decision, the Board began by explaining that "the core of due process is the right to notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard." Due process mandates that notice be "sufficiently detailed" to make the reply opportunity meaningful. To this end, Board regulations require that when OSC files a written complaint alleging a violation, the complaint must state "with particularity any alleged violations of law or regulation, along with the supporting facts."

Here, the Board stated, OSC's complaint lacked the necessary particularity and supporting facts. OSC did not identify the dates the e-mails were sent, the recipients, or the content, other than to state that they purportedly intended to aid the Obama campaign. The alleged documents drafted or edited by the employee were identified as "website materials and speech outlines," but not described with any specificity. Moreover, the Board said, OSC's complaint did not contain any attachments or copies of the documents to identify the specific e-mails or materials that constituted the basis for its charges. Similarly, the location where the offenses supposedly occurred was not described other than a statement that the employee engaged in the alleged conduct "while in a room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties."

Before the Board, OSC asserted that its complaint satisfied the Board's requirements for particularity. OSC claimed that the Board's regulations and case law do not require it to outline each specific instance of the employee's political activity. The Board, however, disagreed, stating, "OSC is mistaken; outlining each specification is precisely what OSC is required to do." The Board went on to say that the employee could not be expected to prepare a defense to each specification of a charge unless each specification is listed with sufficient identifying information to permit the employee to know what event is at issue in the case. While "it is true that OSC need not always describe every event down to the very minute," the Board added that "a poorly drafted, vague complaint ... serves no one" because it does not inform the employee about how OSC believes he has violated the law and does not inform a judge as to what must be adjudicated." The Board added that while it does not require OSC to attach all documents supporting its charges to the complaint, the AJ was correct in noting that such documents might have provided the specificity that was lacking in this case.

OSC also argued that the employee did not receive the complaint "in a vacuum" and that OSC had interviewed the employee twice prior to filing the complaint. OSC thus contended that the employee knew "full well" what the charges were. The Board, however, explained that OSC's investigative interviews do not constitute a charging document. Moreover, the Board noted that during its interviews, OSC presented the employee with hundreds of pages of documents, including a large number of e-mails. Thus, the Board determined that the volume of documents presented to the employee during the investigative process indicated that the interviews were not "sufficiently focused" to place him on notice of the precise allegations against him. In addition, OSC appeared to concede that during the interviews, it did not provide the employee with all of the e-mails it considered problematic. Accordingly, the Board held that the AJ correctly determined that OSC's complaint should be dismissed.

Finally, the Board ruled that while OSC is not permitted to amend the complaint, it could file a new one. "It is well-settled that double jeopardy does not apply to administrative proceedings, and that an agency can renew an adverse action based on charges brought in an earlier proceeding where the adverse action in that proceeding was invalidated on procedural grounds." Thus, the Board stated that OSC's new complaint would be assigned to an AJ for adjudication as a new case.

The case is Special Counsel v. Smith, 2011 MSPB 69, July 12, 2011.

From the Hill

Congress Asks GAO to Study Trends in Federal Employee Morale

A trio of lawmakers has requested that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) study “recent trends in federal employee morale, including possible root causes and steps the federal government can take to improve engagement.”

The request came from three of the top Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, including ranking member Elijah Cummings (MD-7), ranking member of the subcommittee on the federal workforce, U.S. Postal Service, and the Census, Stephen Lynch (MA-8), and ranking member of the subcommittee on government operations Gerry Connolly (VA-11).


Educate Yourself

GovSec 2014

GovSec 2014, the nation’s premier homeland security conference, is right around the corner. The only event that brings together everything you need to be ready when it counts. This year's conference runs from May 13-15 at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in Washington, DC.

Highlighted on this year’s agenda will be Thomas Donilon, former National Security Advisor and Avi Dichter, a former director of the Israel Security Agency. Also featured will be a panel of local, state and federal officials who were actively involved in last year’s response to the Boston Marathon bombing, including identifying the suspects and capturing Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.


Case Law Update

MSPB Finds No Due Process Violation Where Employee Responded to Uncharged Misconduct

A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) employee was investigated by ICE’s Office of Professional Responsibility (“OPR”) after her ex-husband alleged she had misused the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (“TECS”) for personal gain. In January 2010, the agency proposed to remove the employee based on four separate charges, including misuse of TECS, failure to declare income, lack of candor, and failure to cooperate, but did not allege in the proposal notice that she had shared the information she obtained from TECS with her ex-husband or any other “unauthorized” individuals. The employee responded to the proposal orally and in writing, but the agency ultimately sustained all four charges and directed the employee’s removal effective June 18, 2010. 


GEICO's Good Stuff

Join The Public Service Recognition Week Thunderclap

GEICO’s Good Stuff is a column series highlighting great stuff happening in the federal community.

Today, public servants are more vital to our nation’s health than ever. They are on the front lines guarding our national security, shoring up the economy, caring for veterans and providing essential services to the American people.

That’s why during Public Service Recognition Week (May 4-10), we urge you to take a moment to reflect on the importance of these unsung heroes and thank the men and women who serve our nation as federal, state, county, and local government employees.