The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an MSPB decision finding that a GS-13 General Services Administration (“GSA”) employee who claimed that after a temporary promotion he continued to perform the duties of a GS-14 employee was not constructively demoted.
conor d dirks - FEDmanager - News for feds
The Merit Systems Protection Board appeal of a GS-13 Physical Security Specialist with the United States Navy was dismissed with prejudice after the MSPB found that the employee repeatedly failed to file a “perfected petition.”
A former federal employee’s confusion over what he was contesting in a disability retirement appeal did not entitle him to a finding of good cause for the lengthy delay in filing an appeal of his removal.
On March 17, 2016, the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed, in part, a complaint brought by current and former Physical Security Specialists employed by the United States Secret Service, who claimed that the agency engaged in unlawful scheduling and recordkeeping practices in order to deny overtime pay.
Years after the furlough, the Merit Systems Protection Board affirmed the Navy’s use of the furlough on a number of employees contesting the furlough’s applicability to their positions.
A Postal Service employee appealing the agency’s failure to restore her to a position after she was injured and gained new medical restrictions argued that the position she was restored to was so unreasonable as to be an effective denial of her restoration, but her appeal was limited to the time period before she was restored.
The full Merit Systems Protection Board disagreed with an MSPB administrative judge regarding the reasonableness of the penalty of removal after an employee admitted to using marijuana.
The Merit Systems Protection Board vacated an administrative judge’s dismissal of a constructive suspension case after finding that the employee nonfrivolously alleged that she lacked a meaningful choice of whether to go to work against her doctor’s orders.
A Veterans Affairs police officer was charged with lack of candor, among other charges and specifications, and although the Board sustained the employee’s removal, it reversed the charge of Lack of Candor, clarifying the law in the process.
The Merit Systems Protection Board reversed the termination of a Department of Veterans Affairs employee who was terminated after the Agency discovered that a current probation agreement bound the employee to inform prospective employers of his status and prohibited the use of computers with online services and the use of data encryption.
On May 23, 2016, the Merit Systems Protection Board issued its Spring newsletter, which included its adjudication statistics for Fiscal Year 15.
A former employee’s second Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (“USERRA”) appeal regarding an alleged hostile work environment was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the Merit Systems Protection Board as it found that re-litigating the issues on appeal was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel.
The Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”) clarified the legal requirements for proving an affirmative defense of EEO discrimination after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed that its use of the phrase “convincing mosaic,” considered a type of circumstantial evidence, was meant to be a metaphor, rather than a legal test.
The Merit Systems Protection Board remanded a case to the administrative judge because the charges were not reviewed solely on the bases invoked by the agency.
The Merit Systems Protection Board reversed the decision of an administrative judge, finding that actual knowledge of an employee’s protected whistleblowing disclosures is not the only way to show that the employee’s disclosures were a “contributing factor” for a personnel action.
Despite a negative passover decision from OPM, the Merit Systems Protection Board found that the Agency’s subsequent withdrawal of a job offer from a veteran with a 10-point preference was not improper.
A Department of Veterans Affairs employee who had been indefinitely suspended after a grand jury indictment related to the allegedly unauthorized closing of over 2,700 unresolved consults for medical care had his indefinite suspension upheld by the Merit Systems Protection Board.
Attesting that it has a substantial interest in a legal issue presented by Salazar v. Department of Veterans Affairs, the Office of Special Counsel filed a “friend of the court,” or amicus curiae, brief on August 3, 2016, with the Merit Systems Protection Board arguing that an employee who makes a disclosure in his normal course of duties should not be subject to an elevated standard when attempting to prove a prima facie case of whistleblower retaliation.
On April 7, 2016, and April 12, 2016, the United States Office of Special Counsel filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief in two separate cases: Acha v. Department of Agriculture, and Benton-Flores v. Department of Defense, respectively. The Acha case is currently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, while the Benton-Flores case is on remand to an MSPB administrative judge.
The United States Supreme Court reached a 4-4 split in deciding whether non-union members could be charged compulsory fees via an agency shop agreement in public sector unions.