In the first of two articles on job restructuring as a reasonable accommodation, the author explores how managers ascertain what an employee’s essential functions of his or her job position are, how to restructure a job position to accommodate an employee, and explores some cases that shed light on how the EEOC and federal courts look at these issues.
The author says that it is a well established fact that managers have the right to establish standards for requiring employee attendance at work. He notes, however, that failure to enforce attendance requirements can result in further attendance problems and lower morale among employees. He says that supervisors should never be afraid to initiate the appropriate action when warranted and cites some cases as precedent for enforcing consistent attendance in the federal workplace.
A PhD candidate at University of Virginia fought back when the Defense Department ruled she did not qualify for the education reduced fee exemption under the FOIA and therefore would have to pay the full $900 due in fees for the agency’s efforts. She won at the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. She not only gets the reduced fee, her case sets a precedent that should affect how all agencies handle FOIA requests from students in the future.
A Federal appeals court has ruled that an agency head’s email records that are stored on a private, non-government server are nevertheless official agency records reachable by a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
In a case of great significance for federal employees, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned a lower court decision and ruled that “an agency cannot shield its records from search or disclosure” under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) “by the expedient of storing them in a private email account.” The author summarizes the case and what it means for federal workers.
The appeals court agrees with the Merit Systems Protection Board that just because an HR Specialist had access to confidential personnel databases and was labeled a manager by her agency does not mean that she was in a management position or one that otherwise gave the Board jurisdiction over her adverse action (demotion) appeal.
A DFAS (Defense Finance and Accounting Service) employee removed for being found ineligible for a sensitive position due to numerous outstanding debts won a reprieve from the federal appeals court when it threw out the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board and sent the case back for another look.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner who retired rather than be busted down to a non-supervisory position for the offense of nepotism was unable to persuade the Merit Systems Protection Board, and now the appeals court, to hear her case.
When filling out an SF86 form, you may face a steeper punishment than denial or revocation of your security clearance. A recent case highlights the repercussions dishonesty can create for federal employees who lie on this form.