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.

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.

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 June 17, 2016, the Merit Systems Protection Board held that an appellant’s testimony during an Administrative Investigation Board (“AIB”) investigation is not protected activity under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(B), which protects agency employees that testify or lawfully assist individuals in the exercise of appeal, complaint, or grievance rights.

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.

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.

On May 23, 2016, the Merit Systems Protection Board issued its Spring newsletter, which included its adjudication statistics for Fiscal Year 15.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

An annuitant collecting a survivor benefit claimed she had not been returned to status quo ante following OPM’s unilateral rescission of its final decision during her MSPB appeal, and the Board remanded the case to determine whether true status quo ante had been achieved.

Although the Merit Systems Protection Board found little evidence of retaliatory motive on the part of the Agency, the Veterans Benefits Administration presented insufficient evidence to show that it would have canceled an employee’s duties as Program Manager regardless of her disclosure that she believed Federal Acquisition Regulations had been violated.