Search:

Custom Search

Photo of Ralph Smith

Lying Didn't Work Before--Perhaps It Will Work Better the 2nd Time

By Ralph Smith

Sunday, January 21, 2007

You can have daily headlines from FedSmith.com delivered right to your desktop each business morning. The service is free and you don't get junk e-mail as the price of your subscription. Just visit our newsletter page to sign up!

When an employee is about to be fired, it may be understandable that that employee pulls out all stops to try and stay on the public payroll. But, in a new decision, the MSPB the employee details a scenario that shows how one former employee tried harder than most. As this case shows, sometimes trying too hard can work against the employee. (Talavera v. Agency for International Development, Docket No. DC-0752-05-0801-I-2 (January 9, 2007)

The Agency for International Development fired a security specialist based on four charges: Misrepresentation of a material fact; providing false information to a supervisor; inattention to duty; and failing to comply with instructions.

The agency decided that firing the employee was the right decision and implemented the proposal. The employee appealed the decision to the MSPB for relief. On appeal, she argued the agency violated her due process rights because the deciding official considered matters outside those outlined in the notice of proposed removal when the deciding official decided on the penalty to be imposed by the agency.

Consideration of a matter outside the notice of the initial proposal can be a persuasive argument. If an employee is not aware of a charge that is used in making the decision, it would be difficult to make an argument in defense of the employee's actions.

But this case was unique. In this instance, the employee apparently submitted more false information to the agency in response to the proposed removal--or at least that was the view of the agency official.

One of the charges underlying the proposed firing was providing false information. The agency may have seen some irony when reading false information sent in response to the proposal to fire her for giving a supervisor false information. But the deciding official was not amused. In any event, the deciding official did consider the additional false written statements sent in response to the removal notice.

Perhaps it was a clever way to try and get around being fired. But, said the Board, the fact that the employee sent in more false information after the agency was already proposing to fire her for a similar problem indicated she was not a good candidate for rehabilitation. According to the Board, "In assessing the appellant’s potential for rehabilitation, it would have been entirely appropriate for (the deciding official) to consider the fact that the appellant refused to take responsibility for her actions and made false statements in response to the notice of proposed removal."

The deciding official did not deny the employee due process by considering the additional factor and, even if the deciding official did make a mistake, the Board concluded there was a basis for firing the employee in any event.

© 2009 FedSmith Inc. All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced without express written consent of FedSmith Inc.

Add a Comment about this Article

** All fields are required.
Note: Your comments will not show up right away. FedSmith.com selects the most insightful comments from our readers for posting. If selected, your comments will show up in the comments section after they have been reviewed and approved. See our terms of use for more information.

Readers' Comments

  • On the contrary, all employees should be held to the same standard, but this case was not about a supervisor or management official lying. As indicated in the comments from the specialist who assisted management with the case, the employee's false report was potentially serious and threatening to t...
    Posted: January 23, 2007 11:08 AM
  • Since when is lying a mistake? Lying is a deliberate act, and in this case it directly affected the person's suitability for federal employment. If a management official did the same thing, the result would have been the same. This site reports the facts. It is only the commentors who attempt to...
    Posted: January 23, 2007 8:41 AM
  • I was the LER Spec who worked on this case. The employee was a security specialist who was responsible for making security arrangements for high level agency officials on travel to dangerous places around the world, i.e., Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. The employee falsified a report of the security arra...
    Posted: January 23, 2007 7:57 AM

View All Comments »

MORE BY RALPH SMITH

Contact Ralph Smith or read more articles on the author's page.