case law update
This case law update was written by James P. Garay Heelan , an attorney at the law firm of Shaw Bransford & Roth, where since 2021 she has represented federal officials and employees in all aspects of federal personnel employment law. Ms. Grieshammer also advises federal agencies and employers on employment issues, such as proposed disciplinary actions and other employment-related litigation.
A GS-5 Nursing Assistant occupying a “hybrid” Title 38/Title 5 position was terminated from the Department of Veterans Affairs pursuant to the relatively recent expedited removal authorities of 38 U.S.C. § 714 (2017).
The Department of the Army removed the appellant in September 2015 based on one charge of conduct unbecoming a supervisor. The charge was supported by two specifications.
The Department of the Army removed the appellant in September 2015 based on one charge of conduct unbecoming a supervisor. The charge was supported by two specifications.
In June 2014, the appellant, a Security Specialist at the Department of Defense, took an extra $5.00 worth of food from the agency cafeteria without paying for the additional food.
In Johnson v. Air Force, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified that receiving external opinions on a proposed removal is a violation of the due process clause.
A Department of Veterans Affairs employee was terminated for threatening agency employees after HR called the hospital to confirm the employee’s claim that he had not been released.
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) clarified that federal employees may not have due process rights when it comes to the withdrawal of an employment-required condition.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit described the case as one presenting “a novel question involving two provisions within the Constitution: the U.S. Postal Service and the Fourth Amendment.”
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) lacks jurisdiction to address equal employment opportunity (EEO) claims in “individual right of action” whistleblower reprisal appeals, the Fourth Circuit recently held.
As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth and Sixth Circuits remain divided on halting the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) arrest and deportation guidance, the U.S. Supreme Court will step in.
In the recently decided Bishop v. Department of Agriculture, The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) clarified the importance of establishing jurisdiction in whistleblower issues.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found lawful an agency’s decision to propose a new termination action while still pursuing its appeal of its first termination action.
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) clarified its requirements in an appeal jurisdiction: (1) the appellant was an employee (2) subjected to an appealable adverse action.
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) ruled that an agency’s mere reannouncement of the original vacancy doesn’t constitute a proper reconstruction under veterans’ preference laws.
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) clarified that an employee’s absence resulting from a mental health condition does not, on its own, suggest that the employee is likely to do harm.
In overruling Wynn v. U.S. Postal Service, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) set out factors for analyzing whether affirmative defenses have been waived or abandoned.
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) has ruled that term appointees are not entitled to serve beyond the role expiration date, nor are they entitled to a permanent position as relief in a personnel action.
The law recognizes managers retaliate against whistleblowers via personnel action. Though common, one of the hardest to quantify is “significant change in duties, responsibilities, or working conditions.”
The U.S. Supreme Court’s sweeping decision in Egbert v. Boule precludes almost any new kinds of Bivens claims against federal employees, opening the door to a future overturn.