Threats Against Co-Workers Lead to Removal
A NASA auditor fired for workplace disturbance and making threatening statements gets no relief from the MSPB or the appeals court.
Read summaries of court cases and decisions that impact federal employees and retirees.
A NASA auditor fired for workplace disturbance and making threatening statements gets no relief from the MSPB or the appeals court.
A recent MSPB case provides an important clarification and constriction of a substantive standard of law which was in danger of becoming expanded well beyond the plain language of the statute undergirding the eligibility requirements of a Federal Disability Retirement application.
A 22-year Philadelphia mail carrier failed to convince the appeals court to overturn his firing based on charges of interfering in a criminal investigation and improper conduct toward a postal customer.
This federal employee’s disciplinary case involved a charge of nepotism, a violation that one does not encounter every day in the federal workplace.
A probationary employee failed to disclose on his application for a supervisory EO Specialist position with the Department of Labor that he had previously been convicted of a crime. The agency ran a background check and discovered otherwise.
A Bureau of Prisons correctional officer in Atlanta, fired for failing a random drug test, was unsuccessful in his defense that the Thanksgiving cookies were laced with marijuana without his knowledge.
A housekeeping aid at a VA medical center was indefinitely suspended following his indictment on four counts, including possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
In a very recent case before the DC Circuit, the court slammed the Federal Labor Relations Authority again for interpreting law other than its own. In what appears a sweeping decision that may reverse the effect of many years of FLRA Negotiability determinations, the Court found that absent specific appropriations language, an Agency would violate the legal prohibition against use of appropriated funds for employees’ personal expenses. Pay attention to this decision.
In Kennington v. Merit Systems Protection Board, CAFC No. 2011-3192 (nonprecedential), 12/13/11, the court recounts what many would view as odd behavior, including claims from the employee that he “previously worked as a psychic” and “could communicate with angels, God, and Jesus.”
Is a performance standard reasonable where it requires that a Veterans Affairs rating specialist achieve at least 85 percent accuracy? In Fisher v. Department of Veterans Affairs (C.A.F.C. No. 2011-3046 (nonprecedential), 11/14/11), the appeals court agrees with the arbitrator who ruled that it was a reasonable standard.