Read summaries of court cases and decisions that impact federal employees and retirees.
The Army had “legitimate management considerations” for reassigning an engineer to Ft. Riley, Kansas. An appropriate penalty for refusing to move is removal and, in this case, the employee’s refusal to move was upheld by the MSPB and a federal court.
A “last chance” agreement usually means that an employee will be fired if there is a similar problem in the future. When this Postal Service employee argued removal was inappropriate because of her long service record, the last chance agreement still carried the day and the employee remains a former federal employee.
An auditor with the Inspector General for DoD was fired after losing his security clearance. His removal was upheld by the MSPB but a federal court gives him a second shot at overturning his removal.
The charges in this case sound like a scenario from an action adventure novel but the Army was not impressed. The specifications leading to this employee’s removal included failing to turn over a weapon, not getting permission to fly in a restricted military airspace and disobeying air traffic control. The MSPB and a federal court were not impressed either and the employee stays fired.
This Dept. of Veterans Affairs employee filled out a background investigation form but provided inaccurate answers to certain questions. She was fired and the MSPB and a federal court upheld her removal.
A federal employee who died was divorced in 1988 but never filed a form to remove his former wife as his designated beneficiary. What impact does that have on his ex-wife whom he had divorced almost 20 years ago? Where financial impact does it have on his new wife? As this case shows, actions you take (or do not take) have an impact on those you leave behind.
“We are at a loss to understand how an employee could be said to engage in misconduct by submitting an overtime claim based on an estimate so long as the estimate was reasonable.”
A federal employee who was fired as a result of a positive drug test stays fired upo9n appeal despite the employee paying for a subsequent polygraph and drug tests.
An agency has a core mission. An employee’s action in one agency may be a relatively minor problem; in another agency it may be a firing offense. The Internal Revenue Service has strict rules about accessing taxpayer records–presumably because taxpayer records are related to its core mission. When this IRS employee accessed these records for personal reasons, she was fired despite her contention a medical condition was the basis for the problem.
Employees of the Bureau of Prisons argued that they were entitled to overtime pay. They lost before the Court of Claims and a federal appeals court decision leads to a similar conclusion.
