Search:

Custom Search

Appeal of "Patently Unfair" Job Requirement is a Loser in Court

By Susan Smith

Friday, August 15, 2008

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 Air Force Air Traffic Control specialist fired for failing to maintain a certification required by the agency has failed in his bid to overturn the action. (Thompson v. Department of the Air Force, C.A.F.C. No. 2008-3201 (nonprecedential), 8/12/08)

Thompson was required by Air Force instructions to keep his Air Traffic Control Specialist (ATCS) certificate. On appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board, he did not contest that he had lost his ATCS certification. Instead he attacked the certification requirement. He maintained that the ATCS requirement was wrongly applied to his position. He argued he should be required to have an Air Traffic Control Tower Operator certificate (CTO) and not the ATCS certification. Requiring him to have the ATCS certification was "in bad faith and patently unfair." (Opinion p. 2)

The Air Force demonstrated to the Board's satisfaction that it had authority to impose requirements in addition to those imposed by the Federal Aviation Administration, and that it had properly imposed the ATCS requirement. The Board disagreed with Thompson's argument and upheld his removal. (p. 2)

On appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, Thompson has not fared any better. In sustaining the Board's ruling, the court pointed out that the Air Force was within its authority as granted to it by the Federal Aviation Administration to add extra requirements to its air traffic control personnel. The agency requires ATCS certification for Thompson's position. He lost the certification. He stays fired. (pp. 2-3)

© 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

  • I have worked with the individual and there is more to the story. I am not going to get into the details but I will clear some things. He did have a CTO certification and he was rated. He was decertified for reasons I can not mention. What he did was stupid but I don't agree with the way the DOD...
    Posted: August 19, 2008 7:50 PM
  • The article states he failed to maintain the required rating so I presume he was rated and likey failed an annual. I was a controller in the USAF and administered those ratings. I would see tower only troops come to RADAR and be unable to obtain an approach control cert and I busted an occasional ...
    Posted: August 19, 2008 7:10 AM
  • Uh, I think waaaa's comment was supposed to be a joke. If not, it would definitely make me concerned if this person's defiant behavior was supposed to be counseling me for whatever troubles I might be having....
    Posted: August 18, 2008 11:32 AM

View All Comments »

MORE BY SUSAN SMITH

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