Search:

Custom Search

First Offense: Lying, Disgraceful Conduct and Making False Statements

By Susan Smith

Thursday, November 1, 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!

An Army Equal Employment Opportunity Manager fired for disgraceful conduct and making false statements, was unsuccessful in her challenge before the appeals court. (King v. Department of the Army, C.A.F.C. No. 2007-3186 (nonprecedential), 10/30/07)

King's troubles began when she was erroneously issued a travel check in the amount of $4,158. The agency discovered its error immediately, and her bosses explained to King that she was not legally entitled to the funds. She was specifically instructed by her supervisor not to cash the check. You guessed it - she cashed the check anyway, told the agency she had never received it and claimed that her ex-husband had been the one to cash it. King eventually admitted that she was the culprit. (Opinion, p. 2)

The agency took a dim view of King's actions and fired her. The charges were false statements, lying to a supervisor, and disgraceful conduct. On appeal, the Merit Systems Protection Board held a hearing and found that Army had proved its charges and had properly weighed the "Douglas" factors in deciding upon the removal penalty. (p. 2)

Among other things, King argued to the appeals court that the penalty was extreme and unfair, given that this was her first offense, and the Board should have reduced it. However, the court sided with the Board. The court quotes this portion of the Administrative Judge's decision: "…[T]he agency has shown that it gave adequate consideration to the Douglas factors and …properly exercised its managerial discretion in selecting the penalty of removal." (p. 4)

© 2008 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

  • I agree that EEO has not outlived its usefulness but it could use a major overhaul!! I noted that one person commented on how much time EEO folks spent going to training and had to laugh. I think there is a grain of truth to that. EEO, in some agencies, is a convoluted mess. We (feds) have abu...
    Posted: November 9, 2007 9:39 AM
  • To the USRO official whom said "The bottom line is that EEO positions have outgrown their usefulness," I say you are obviously someone whom have never needed to use the service. As far as I am concerned, you don’t have the right to make such a statement. I further say that her position has less to...
    Posted: November 8, 2007 9:24 AM
  • I agree with you completely. The EEOC published a document, MD-714, which required each agency to create an Affirmative Employment Plan (AEP). The document basically said that white males do not count. Preference was to be given to minorities and females even though they are represented in great...
    Posted: November 7, 2007 5:06 PM

View All Comments »

MORE BY SUSAN SMITH

More »