Re: Is This For Real?

I tend to agree with your assessment of this failing the smell test.

No one should be given a mere four hours to consider whether or not to retire versus accept another option that is not yet clear as to what it is. Would ANY gov't official want to be given a mere four hours to consider a profound decision about his/her organization (such as to continue the organization with punishment or a severe budget cut versus closing the organization all together)? We spend lots of money educating our employees about retirement and allow them to attend seminars and briefings on the subject. How could this one employee have been treated fairly if he was not well informed of his retirement options? How poor his supervisors must be to let this become such a dire situation without having more oversight and involvement than what they appear to have had. Perhaps his supervisors and managers should be reprimanded also for having been so negligent and letting things get to this point before now.

Re: Coercion:Resign or be fired

The agency did not have to give him any choice at all; they could have just delivered the removal proposal. That, presumably, would also be coercion based on your definition. By giving him the choice, he would not have the removal on his record. The agency would also gain a benefit as it would not have the time and considerable expense of defending an appeal, at least they probably anticipated they would not have this expense since that was their agreement with the manager.

The time for him to make his decision was short but the agency was more generous than it needed to be by giving him an opportunity to minimize the damage to his future. That, in my view and, more importantly in the view of the court, was not coercion.

Re: I have never understood this logic

Then under your logic, the agency should have just given him a removal notice and then handled the inevitable appeals without giving him any recourse because some would not think that was "fair." Perhaps everyone would have been better off--including the individual who decided to file an appeal and create a public record of his problems with the agency.

Re: I have never understood this logic

The problem with your example is that it presents a choice between illegal acts. Resign or be fired is a choice between legal options. And he had a clue that it was coming when they e-mailed him that his future employment was being considered.

Re: I have never understood this logic

I thought I'd sworn off replying to nonsensical comments like this, but I just can't stay silent on this one. Here's what's wrong with the AF Engineer's "logic": In the case of a man threatening a woman with violence to obtain sex, he is forcing her to submit to a criminal assault by threatening her with an even more horrible criminal act. Obviously, he has no right to do either one of these things to her. In the case of the employee removal, the agency is entirely within its rights to offer him a choice between resigning or being fired. If they had threatened to retaliate against him in some illegal fashion if he didn't resign, then that would have been coercion. I'm saddened to see a fellow engineer putting forth such fallacious reasoning.

Re: Decisions, decisions...

I have seen the retire or be fired, used as a method to push out supervisors that are too honest, and to truthful.
Several years ago we got a new Director and in six months he flew out the people with power and recruited his own people. Two years later he was demoted and moved to an other area but allowed to retire once he reached 55.
In the mean time he had done untold damage to the repetitions of many people.