MSPB Quorum Returns After 1,880 Days

, ,

By Deborah J. Hopkins, March 2, 2022

Late yesterday, while the world was focused on the Ukraine crisis and the country discussed the State of the Union address, the Senate confirmed two individuals to the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (the Board) by voice vote: Raymond L. Limon, and Tristan L. Leavitt.

While there was not a vote on the third and final nominee, Cathy Harris, two out of three members still makes a quorum, which means we’ll soon see decisions on the 3,600+ Petitions for Review awaiting action. The Board will have its work cut out for it, as decisions will need to be issued on topics including:

  • Whistleblower reprisal allegations
  • New performance requirements in the wake of Santos v. NASA
  • Challenges to Administrative Judge authority
  • Interpretation of the VA Accountability And Whistleblower Protection Act
  • Pendulum shifts in Executive Orders and OPM regulations

We’ve long said that justice delayed is justice denied, and this Senate action, while long overdue, is an important step in the right direction for all the people impacted by the 5+ year lack of quorum at the MSPB. Stay tuned to FELTG for all the latest information, and join us at the end of the month for MSPB Law Week, where we’ll unpack all the latest information from the new Board. Hopkins@FELTG.com

The State of the Civil Service: 2022 Edition

, , ,

By Deborah Hopkins, January 11, 2022

It’s now 2022, and over the past 12 months there have been significant changes in the Federal civil service – common any time there’s a change in administration, but more so in this past year than any other year I can recall. As I’ve done for the past several Januarys, I’d like to share some highlights and happenings (and, unfortunately, non-happenings) in the world of Federal employment law.

Vaccine Requirement

On September 9, President Biden issued Executive Order 14043, which required all Federal employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19, unless they qualified for a legal exemption. These exemptions only apply when employees have a medical condition or sincerely held religious belief that prohibits them from being vaccinated. Even then, exemptions will only be granted if doing so does not cause an undue hardship on agency operations. The deadline to be “fully vaccinated” was November 22.

In December, the administration issued guidance telling agencies to wait until the new year to take any disciplinary actions involving a loss of pay (suspensions, demotions, or removals) for employees who fail to be vaccinated and don’t qualify for a legal exemption.

Now that it’s 2022, agencies are free to move forward with the steps of progressive discipline as set forth in the guidance.

This EO has gone largely unchallenged, whereas the vaccine requirement for Federal contractors, and those for employees outside the Federal government, have seen numerous Court challenges and injunctions.

Executive Orders

President Biden issued 77 Executive Orders in 2021, many within his first few days in office. Below are just a few that directly impact Federal employees.

  • 13985: Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government
  • 13988: Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation
  • 14003: Protecting the Federal Workforce (this EO rescinded President Trump’s three Federal workforce EOs from 2018, plus the EO on Schedule F designation)
  • 14035: Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the FederalWorkforce
  • 14043: Requiring Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination for FederalEmployees

MSPB

Last year, President Biden nominated three individuals to serve as members of the Merit Systems Protection Board.

In October, the nominees were voted out of committee, which means the next and final step is a vote from the Senate, where a simple majority could confirm the nominees.

As of this writing, that vote has not been scheduled and we have no indication when, or if, a vote will occur.

The last time there was a quorum at the MSPB was Jan. 7, 2017. The backlog of Petitions for Review has now reached over 3,600. If and when the nominees get confirmed they will have a LOT on the agenda besides the backlog, including:

  • Assessing cases under new performance requirements, as a result of the March 2021 Federal Circuit decision Santos v. NASA
  • Challenges to Administrative Judge authority, as a result of Lucia v. SEC
  • Interpretations on the newish VA accountability law
    • This includes the burden of proof in misconduct cases, as a result of the August 2021 Federal Circuit decision Rodriguez v. VA
  • Untangling the timeline in cases involving several Executive Orders and OPM regulations that were issued first under the Trump administration and then rescinded under the Biden administration

We can only hope these confirmations will occur soon. If so, we should start getting MSPB decisions in time for MSPB Law Week, March 28 – April 1. Register soon and save your seat.

EEOC

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been very busy over the past twelve months, in the Federal sector and beyond. In addition to taking on an integral role in President Biden’s Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility (DEIA) agenda, the Commission has also regularly provided updated guidance related to the COVID-19 pandemic and related EEO issues.

More recently, the EEOC cautioned employers against illegal reprisal related to vaccine exemption requests. We’re tackling that in the January 19 webinar Stop the Spread of COVID-related Retaliation in the Federal Workplace.

For more, join us for EEO Counselor training later this month or EEOC Law Week in April. And be sure to check out Dan Gephart’s recent interview with EEOC Chair Charlotte Burrows about what agencies can expect in the world of EEO in 2022.

FLRA

The MSPB isn’t the only agency dealing with a backlog. The Federal Labor Relations Authority has several hundred Unfair Labor Practice cases pending review. In addition, two nominees for Authority members are still awaiting Senate confirmation. Sound familiar? Of course, the significant difference between these confirmations and the MSPB confirmations is that there are currently Authority members in acting positions, so there’s a quorum and decisions can still be issued.

In addition to quickly overturning President Trump’s union-related EOs, the Biden Administration has also taken several steps to increase the visibility of, and employee participation in, Federal unions. OPM issued management directives in October 2021 that instructed Federal agencies to highlight collective bargaining rights for Federal employees.

Plus, there have been numerous precedent-altering decisions over the past year that may be impacted after the anticipated change from a Republican majority to a Democratic majority. On top of that, we’re still waiting for the Senate to confirm the first permanent FLRA General Counsel in more than four years.

Join us for FLRA Law Week May 10-14, where the entire world of Federal Labor relations will be discussed in depth. By then, a lot of these issues should be much clearer.

OPM Regulations

Last week, OPM issued proposed new rules on 5 CFR Parts 315, 432 and 752, as a result of Executive Order 14003. Comments are open for the public until February 3.

OPM also proposed regulations for 5 CFR part 724, the Elijah E. Cummings Federal Employee Anti-Discrimination Act of 2020, and comments on these regs are due by February 4.

Next week, FELTG’s News Flash will share the takeaways from these proposed regulations.

Closing Thoughts

2022 looks to be quite interesting with a continued pandemic, anticipated returns to the workplace, and expanded telework for hundreds of thousands of employees. As always, we’ll keep you up to date when ever anything noteworthy occurs. Hopkins@FELTG.com

C8 Traits Provide a Road Map to Real Leadership Success

, , ,

By Marcus Hill, January 11, 2022

Editor’s note: Marcus Hill presents FELTG training on leadership, EEO, supervisory challenges,  and more. We’re excited to have Marcus contribute to the FELTG Newsletter. If you’re interested in having Marcus conduct training for your agency, contact info@FELTG.com.

January 2022 marks my one-year retirement anniversary. It inspired me to declutter the workplace belongings around the house I amassed over 37 years.  Yes … I know, who hoards that amount of stuff? Unfortunately, and fortunately, me. Unfortunately is obvious, but I say fortunately because sorting through the clutter presented an opportunity to reminisce and celebrate professional achievements one more time. I began my Federal career as, some would say, a disadvantaged South Georgian 17-year-old GS-2 cooperative education student but concluded it as a highly accomplished Senior Executive Service leader.

As I combed through the documents and memorabilia chronicling my career, one word continuously resonated with me — leadership. In fact, one of the first items I ran across during my organizing efforts was a May 1983 newspaper article that featured an interview I gave as the graduating high school senior class president. In that article, I acknowledged the leadership experience I gained serving in that role and commented it would come in handy in the future. Little did I know the future would be one month later when I started my Federal civil service career. In addition, I thanked my parents, teachers, coaches, and classmates for contributing to the leader that I had become. I was impressed reading such humility at a young age. Yes, what I now refer to as C8 Leadership Traits were infused in me early on and significantly contributed to achieving those many accomplishments visible throughout the clutter.  So what are these C8 Leadership Traits that I attributed to enabling so many successes? I am glad you asked:

C1–Character:  Leaders who demonstrate impeccable character attract like-valued followers. We know integrity, honest and ethical behavior are core qualities of reputable, trustworthy leaders. Leaders of great character also possess a mindset of serving those who follow or work for them. By shifting the traditional paradigm of subordinates working for their leaders, leaders forge bonds that result in subordinates giving their all to support them. A former colleague shared a quote that resonated with me at the time. He attributed it to a Civil War dictum for calvary commanders: “Feed your horses, feed your men (troops) and then feed yourself.” Character orders this sequencing.

C2–Capacity: Effective leaders must possess the capacity for continuous learning. Albert Einstein said: “Once you stop learning, you start dying.” Research has shown that developing a healthy reading habit strengthens your mental capacity. Leaders must have the capacity to absorb and apply relevant learnings for the betterment of their organizations, colleagues, and themselves.

C3–Competence: Competence establishes credibility. Therefore, leaders must invest time and energy into honing their craft, being very proficient in those competencies relevant to leading and managing.

C4–Confidence: Confidence results from preparation. Leaders who are prepared when opportunities present achieve success. In mathematical terms, “Preparation + Opportunity = Success.” Successful leaders exude confidence.

C5–Courage: “There is no right way to do the wrong thing.” On occasions, leaders may find themselves in situations in which they may have to remind superiors of this. I experienced such a time. Doing so can be emotional and career-impacting. However, leaders must have the courage to speak truth to power if warranted. Remember, leaders are constantly being watched and evaluated by their subordinates. According to my former deputy, a former United States Marine, I earned my blood stripes that day when I had to demonstrate such courage. Along with that badge of honor, I earned the ultimate respect of my colleagues. That was priceless.

C6 – Compassion: We are spiritual beings living a human existence. Each of us will experience days in the struggle, and a good dose of compassion may be our cure. Often, leaders can make/break, convict, or pardon. There is power in the pardon. It’s OK to be the Velvet Hammer on occasion.

C7 – Completion: Zig Ziglar stated, “It’s not where you start but where you finish that counts.” Be a leader that’s known for closing. Most are only openers. Results matter.

C8 – Commitment to excellence: Leaders should strive for excellence in every endeavor and inspire others to do the same. In the last organization I led, our mantra was “Excellence in All We Do, It’s Our Responsibility.”  The best strategy for a leader to gain that commitment to achieve organizational goals is by including their workforce in strategic planning initiatives, not just the senior leaders.

Creating an inclusive planning culture that values differing perspectives yields great opportunities to accomplish strategic priorities. Committing to this approach resulted in my former organization, during my tenure, achieving more than 40 governmental and industry awards, including many individual recognitions for excellence.

I have successfully organized the clutter and purged items I no longer need to retain from my former career.  By doing so, I believe I have only created additional space for more C8 Leadership Traits-based successes to come. Hill@FELTG.com

The Good News: Stop Using ‘Can’t Versus Won’t’ and Everyone Will Be Happier (Trust Me)

, , ,

By Ann Boehm, January 11, 2022

Throughout almost 30 years of working in Federal personnel law, one of the mantras that bothers me the most is the one used by many personnel practitioners to decide whether an employment issue is performance or misconduct: “If the employee can’t do it, it’s performance. If the employee won’t do it, it’s misconduct.”

My reaction to this statement is remarkably consistent: “Huh?!”

Seriously, what does this mean? If you want to get very legalistic about it, this mantra is assigning intent to whether an employee should be placed on a performance improvement plan or disciplined. No intent (can’t) = performance. Intent (won’t) = misconduct. That just doesn’t make sense.

I see how a willful failure to perform – “won’t,” if you will – could be misconduct. But a willful failure to perform can also be performance. And if somebody can’t do what they are expected to do, does that excuse them from engaging in misconduct? I think not.

In 2014, I attended FELTG’s MSPB Law Week training. FELTG Grand Poobah Emeritus Bill Wiley explained that “can’t vs. won’t” doesn’t make any sense (agreed, agreed, agreed; applause, applause, applause). As Bill explained it, the proper test for performance versus conduct simply requires examination of the critical elements in the performance work plan. If an employee is unacceptable on any one critical element in the plan, it’s performance. Otherwise, it’s misconduct.

Hooray! Life changing! This makes so much sense!

We at FELTG continue to teach performance versus misconduct in this way. It’s totally logical. “Can’t versus won’t” is not. But sadly, “can’t versus won’t” just will not go away.

Even the MSPB has used the illogical “can’t versus won’t” analysis. In Valles v. Dep’t of State, MSPB LEXIS 25 (M.S.P.B. Jan. 6, 2020), the appellant challenged his removal. He argued that a fully successful performance rating undermined the agency’s proof of the misconduct charge “failure to follow instructions.”

Let’s just stop right there. The appellant received a fully successful performance rating. He was acceptable on all of his critical elements. If you use the FELTG approach, this could not be a performance case. It had to be misconduct.

The MSPB, however, did not use the very wise and logical FELTG approach. The administrative judge explained that a “failure to follow instructions” charge requires an agency to show that the employee “(1) was given proper instructions, and (2) failed to follow the instructions, without regard to whether the failure was intentional or unintentional.” Id. at *19 (emphasis added). Even though intent is not relevant to a failure to follow instructions charge, somehow the AJ was persuaded by the agency witnesses’ testimony that “performance involves an employee who ‘can’t do,’ while misconduct involves an employee who ‘won’t do.’” Id. at *25. (Sounds like an intent analysis to me.) Apparently, the appellant was a classic “won’t do.” That was good enough for the AJ to find the agency proved the failure to follow instructions charge.

Arghhhhh!! This makes no sense!

The Federal Circuit reviewed the MSPB’s decision and affirmed the removal. Valles v. Dep’t of State, No. 2020-1686 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 29, 2021). Unfortunately, the court did not question the AJ’s “can’t versus won’t” analysis. However, it did not rely upon it either. The court pointed out that “[i]ssues of misconduct and performance may overlap” and “following instructions can fall within this area of overlap.” Id., slip op at 4.

The performance and conduct overlap is precisely why agencies struggle with whether to pursue a matter as performance or misconduct. An easy tool is needed to help with this decision-making process.

Guess what that easy tool is. NOT “can’t versus won’t.” Trust me. It’s the FELTG way. Failing a critical element means it is performance. Otherwise, it is likely misconduct.

It’s important to understand what else the court held with regard to this performance/ misconduct overlap. The court determined that appellant’s fully successful performance evaluation was relevant and had to be considered in assessing the proof of the charged misconduct as well as the penalty (in the Douglas factor analysis).

Agencies need to consider the impact of a fully successful evaluation on a related misconduct case. That being said, the court noted “that the existence of a fully successful performance evaluation” does not bar “discipline for matters covered by the evaluation,” only “that the evaluation must be considered” in determining whether the discipline was appropriate. Id. at 5. Fortunately for the agency in Valles, the court found that even though the AJ erred in not considering the fully successful appraisal, the employee was so bad that removal was justified – no harmful error there. Id. at 5-6.

My friends, we at FELTG want to make the crazy Federal personnel world easier for you to navigate. Resolve in 2022 to stop relying on “can’t versus won’t” in deciding between a performance or misconduct action. Rely on a review of the performance plan’s critical elements. We don’t make this stuff up. We want to help. And that’s Good News. Boehm@FELTG.com

Join FELTG for the live virtual training MSPB Law Week March 28-April 1.

If the EEOC Orders Training, Who Ya Gonna Call?

, , ,

By Michael Rhoads, January 11, 2022

No one is perfect, and mistakes are bound to happen over the course of a career.  So, what happens when a manager is found to have made a mistake related to an EEO complaint?  Occasionally, the EEOC will order training for the supervisor in question or, if the behavior is pervasive throughout agency, for all supervisors.  The goal is to make sure everyone is in compliance with the law. Some recent EEOC cases are a good reminder that no matter how many times you say something, it’s best to mind your Ps and Qs to avoid getting yourself and your agency in trouble.  Below are some recent cases from the EEOC which serve as a good reminder of what you can and can’t say, and what should be avoided at all costs.

No Substitute

In Foster B. v. Department of Health and Human Services, EEOC Appeal No. 2019005682 (April 12, 2021) the Complainant, a supervisory health system specialist, filed an EEO complaint alleging that the Agency discriminated against him and subjected him to a hostile work environment on the bases of sex (male, sexual orientation) and disability.  An employee working under him used sex-based epithets against gay men several times over the course of two years.

The complainant’s supervisors encouraged him to file an EEO complaint but did nothing to stop the employee’s discriminatory behavior. The EEOC found that the agency’s lack of discipline emboldened the employee to continue with the epithets. The employee used the epithets in the presence of the complainant’s supervisor and other employees on several occasions.

The EEOC found the agency did not provide a clear complaint procedure. The most important lesson to learn from this case is, “… the EEO process is not a substitute for the Agency’s internal process.” The law is the foundation, but the agency still needs to come up with an actionable plan to assist employees with processing EEO complaints.

The EEOC also ordered the supervisors to attend eight hours for training related to eliminating harassment in the workplace.  FELTG is holding a session on Wednesday, March 9, 2022, from 1:00-3:00 ET, Honoring Diversity: Eliminating Microaggressions and Bias in the Federal Workplace.

Thrown Under the Bus

In Jane H. v. Dept. of the Air Force, EEOC Appeal No. 2020003198, (May 19, 2021), an employee filed 19 complaints, which the Agency investigated. The complaints alleged that the agency subjected her to a hostile work environment over a five-year period on the bases of sex (female), and reprisal for prior protected EEO activity.

The hostile work environment complaints are related to the behavior of two co-workers and the complainant’s supervisor.  Some of the behavior included:

  • The complainant’s computer software folder was intentionally deleted
  • The complainant was taken off overtime shifts
  • Items were stolen from the complainant’s desk
  • A large trash can and dead bugs were left on her desk
  • A co-worker repeatedly made loud noises “causing complainant to have a panic attack and seek medical attention.”

However, the both the AJ and the EEOC found the hostile work environment claims by the complainant to be unpersuasive. “Even construing any inferences raised by the undisputed facts in favor of Complainant, a reasonable factfinder could not find in Complainant’s favor.”

However, due to one errant comment by the supervisor, the EEOC remanded the AJ’s finding of no discrimination on the bases of reprisal back to the agency for further processing. The EEOC also ordered the supervisor to attend eight hours of EEO training.  The comment from the supervisor was in response to a request from the complainant for union time. “[The Chief] and I were both thrown under the bus due to your EEO complaint. If I don’t give you time, you’re just going to file a grievance.”

But for this one comment, the Agency’s case would stand.  We’re all human, however, supervisors are held to a higher standard when it comes to the words chosen when addressing an employee. Don’t let hurt feelings hurt an EEO case by using chilling language toward a complainant.   Understanding how to avoid retaliatory situations like this is where FELTG shines.  We will offer Stop the Spread of COVID-related Retaliation in the Federal Workplace on January 19 from 1-2:15 pm ET. (Note: the training recording is now available.)

As we begin 2022, let this be a year of increased understanding and thoughtfulness between all employees. We at FELTG are here to offer the right training and guidance to help you avoid common EEO pitfalls and mistakes.  Stay safe, and remember, we’re all in this together. Rhoads@feltg.com

Performance Isn’t About Can’t Do vs. Won’t Do

, , ,
By William Wiley, September 7, 2021

Below is an email we received from a FELTG student, lightly edited for space and context, followed by our FELTG answer.

Dear FELTG,

I attended your MSPB Law Week in person last year just before everything was shut down due to COVID. I recall your discussion about performance management, and you made a statement that I swear I wrote down but cannot find in my notes. I was wondering if you might be able to reiterate. You said something along the lines of “Performance vs. conduct is not a matter of can’t do and won’t do.” This can’t vs. won’t is something I was taught as a young ER practitioner some years ago. However, your explanation was MUCH better!

Thanks in advance.

And the response:

Ah, the old “can’t do vs. won’t do.” Has a nice ring to it. The reason that FELTG teaches that this is an incorrect concept is based in law and, unfortunately, the law doesn’t always have a nice catchy rhythm.

If we read the statute that lays out the procedures for taking a performance-based removal (codified at 5 USC 4303), we don’t see anything that speaks to volition. Therefore, the willfulness of an employee’s unacceptable performance is not a matter of law with which we need to be concerned when initiating a performance removal. We don’t have to care whether the employee says, “Boss, I refuse to work that hard” or “Boss, I can’t work that hard.” If the employee is not performing at a level that the supervisor sets as the minimum level of performance, we can initiate a 432-performance action.

Being able to initiate a 432-performance action without concern for can’t v. won’t is important for several reasons:

  • It’s one less case element we have to prove on appeal. It gives the employee one less thing to argue with us about. Reducing arguments is a very desirable outcome.
  • 432-performance actions are a fast, efficient procedure for dealing with a documented non-producing employee. We can initiate a 432 action today by giving the employee a notice that specifies the performance elements being failed, and then propose the employee’s removal 31 days from now if performance does not improve to the minimal level. In contrast, a 752-misconduct action (a reference to 5 USC Chapter 75 adverse action removal procedures) many times involves an initial Reprimand (which might be grieved), followed by a proposed-then-decided Suspension (which also might be grieved), and THEN by an eventual proposed Removal. Those steps invariably take more than 31 days.
  • Separately, performance-based removals need be supported by only substantial evidence, whereas misconduct-based removals must be proven by the higher burden of a preponderance of the evidence. And MSPB cannot mitigate a performance-based removal to something else. No Douglas Factors to worry about. 432-removals are the preferred procedure to deal with problem employees who can’t or don’t do what they are told to do performance-wise.

In addition to all of this, we have to acknowledge that there are exceptions to the concept that can’t-do problems are necessarily addressed via a 432-performance-based action. We routinely use 752-adverse-action procedures to remove employees who can’t do things, e.g.:

  • The employee who can’t come to work because of matters beyond the employee’s control where leave has been approved (Excessive Absence)
  • The employee who has a medical limitation and, thereby, can’t perform an essential job function (Medical Inability to Perform)

I hope you either read one of our earlier FELTG articles and/or attended our webinars that explained that the Federal Circuit recently changed what management is required to do when confronted with a non-performing employee. Previously, we had to prove that the employee was put on notice of on-going unacceptable performance (usually by the supervisor initiating a Demonstration Period, i.e., a DP), and then prove that the employee did not perform acceptably during the DP. Now, we also must prove that the employee was performing unacceptably BEFORE the DP was initiated.

Bottom Line: Assessing whether a problem with an employee is “can’t do or won’t do” is unnecessary and possibly misleading. It’s better just to focus on the outcome when dealing with a poor performer. When it comes to the concept of volition – can’t do vs. won’t do – Master Yoda said it most succinctly, “You must unlearn what you have learned. … Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try.” Hey, if we can’t rely on the wisdom of a little, old, green alien, who can we trust?

Best of luck out there. Wiley@FELTG.com

 

A Schedule F Look-alike Rears Its Ugly Head

, , ,

By Deborah J. Hopkins, June 16, 2021

Just when we thought Schedule F was gone forever, a recent report Increasing Accountability in the Civil Service (from some of the same minds behind Schedule F) is once again pushing for Federal employment to be at-will. The good news for Feds is this push is coming from outside the administration. The bad news for Feds is, the whole reason this idea is still out there is because Federal supervisors underutilize the accountability systems that are already in place, and that leads the taxpayers to believe the system doesn’t work and it’s impossible to fire the Federal employees who deserve to be removed.

If I may opine, as I occasionally do in this space, this report highlights a few egregious instances of Federal employees behaving badly, and does not take into account all the agencies who follow the procedures and successfully hold employees accountable, thousands of times each year.

Because the successful removals, my friends, don’t get your attention. But people remember things like the HUD employee who used his agency email to arrange a lap dance, or the USPS employee who bought cocaine on her lunch break and brought it in to the postal facility. If it bleeds, it leads, as I learned in broadcasting school. The sensationalism of the few bad cases on the front page is just another permutation of the question we ask in our UnCivil Servant training classes: What’s more scary – a shark or a cow? (Hint: the cow should scare you more.)

[Editor’s note: Would you like bring UnCivil Servant training to your supervisors?  Contact FELTG Training Director Dan Gephart at Gephart@FELTG.com.]

We don’t need civil service reform. I’ll say it again: We don’t need civil service reform. In fact, I wrote about this a couple of years back in a three-part series where I detailed that holding people accountable is not as difficult as you might think, doesn’t take as much time as you might think, and doesn’t require as much evidence as you might think. And I stand by it today.

At FELTG, we have been teaching on accountability for more than 20 years. And in too many classes, we come across agencies where the supervisors, L/ER Specialists, or attorneys admit (or won’t admit the truth) that they are risk-averse and don’t like taking disciplinary or performance-based actions because they don’t want to lose at litigation. So too often, they look the other way when employees have behavioral or performance issues.

For example, look at these statistics from a 2019 research brief the Merit Systems Protection Board:

Top Three Reasons Supervisors Don’t Fire More Bad Performers

  1. Agency’s culture is to not remove: 83 percent
  2. Lack of upper management support: 78 percent
  3. Lack of quality HR support: 75 percent

Remedying Unacceptable Performance in the Federal Workplace (MSPB, June 2019).

I don’t need to tell you that these are not good numbers. This all adds to the problem of perception. When bad employees are not held accountable, the good employees see that nothing happens, those bad employees get the same pay and benefits as your hardest workers, and it negatively impacts morale. Over the years, we have seen an increase in positive morale when supervisors hold employees accountable, and we encourage you to do the same.

In our classes, we show you the hard evidence that if you follow the law, the chances of your disciplinary or performance action being upheld are really, really good. Don’t let the shark scare you. Most people get through life without getting eaten by a shark.

Show America that we don’t need civil service reform. Show your good employees that their hard work means a lot to you and to your agency. Use the accountability system the way it’s intended – to remove employees, when you have cause. We promise, it’s possible. We help agencies do it every day. Hopkins@FELTG.com

Return of the Inspector General

, , ,

By Mike Rhoads, June 16, 2021

At the end of the previous administration “at least a dozen of the 38 presidentially appointed inspectors general” positions were left vacant. Now that the transition dust has settled and a new Presidential administration has taken hold, members of Congress have started to re-examine the role of the Office of Inspector General.

A couple of bills have proposed changes to The Inspector General Act of 1978.

Legislative Support from Congress

Nextgov reported that “new legislation in Congress to support IG subpoenas The Inspector General Testimonial Subpoena Authority Act, introduced by Sens. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, would empower IGs to subpoena former federal officials, as well as contractors and grantees, for in-person testimony.”

The current law only allows IGs to subpoena current Federal employees, while the new law would allow IGs to pursue those who leave the Federal service in US District Court.

Sen. Grassley said: “This bill empowers inspectors general to compel testimony from former employees so bad actors in government can’t simply run from accountability by exiting government.”

Another bill recently proposed by Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., Chairwoman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and other Democratic House members is the IG Independence and Empowerment Act. As reported in Government Executive, the bill would amend the 1978 Inspector General Act and do the following:

  • Only allow IGs to be removed for cause.
  • Require a president to notify Congress before an IG is put on non-duty status.
  • Require only current IGs or senior IG staff to serve as acting IGs.
  • Add information the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency must include in its reports to Congress and make more of its information available to Congress.
  • Give IGs the authority to subpoena witnesses who aren’t current government employees (such as those who previously served in government).
  • Allow the Justice Department IG to investigate misconduct by the department’s attorneys instead of Justice’s Office of Professional Responsibility.
  • Expand whistleblower training for employees in IG offices and IGs themselves.
  • Require notifications to Congress and CIGIE about an IG’s ongoing investigations when an IG is put on non-duty status.
  • Give CIGIE a single appropriation.
  • Require IGs to alert Congress if agencies deny their access to information requested.

Amendments were introduced which sought to modify the provision on subpoena authority, and the provisions regarding presidents removing IGs, limitations on who can serve as acting IGs, and subpoena authority for IGs. These amendments were ultimately voted down. Stay tuned to see if these reforms make their way through the legislative process.

New Tools for IGs Needed

In addition to legislative protections, Inspectors General need up-to-date tools to keep up with the demands of modern data analysis. IGs may still have to comb through boxes of subpoenaed papers, but the data requested is often complex and too voluminous to go through each document individually, whether in physical or digital form. A modern workforce requires innovative, digital tools for the OIG to do its job efficiently and effectively.

In a conversation on Federal News Network, Steven Burke, the chairman of the Investigation subcommittee of the Technology committee of the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), said, “one of the ways to overcome those challenges is with good business relationships among government customers and external data owners.

“The Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 and more transparency of government information on websites such as IGNET.gov, which is hosted by CIGIE, Oversight.gov and the White House; to government transparency of COVID-19 pandemic relief spending are all good opportunities to see where information is going.”

Momentum has shifted for the Inspector General community. Their work keeps our government from riding off the rails and keeps the ship of state upright and moving in the right direction. An OIG’s mission is fundamentally bipartisan and should not be influenced by shifting political winds.  They should be given the necessary tools to ensure the work of the people’s government is not misused or mistreated.

The job of IGs and their staff is often misunderstood. To better understand the relationship between the Office of Inspector General and its agency, join Scott Boehm on June 24 from 1 – 2:00 pm ET for Not a One-Way Street: How OIGs and Agencies Can Successfully Work Together.  Find out how your Office of Inspector General is working to make your agency a better place.

Stay safe, and remember, we’re all in this together. Rhoads@FELTG.com

How is Kirkpatrick Act Discipline Different from Traditional Discipline?

, ,

By Deborah Hopkins, June 7, 2021

Last week, the MSPB released a research brief Agency Leader Responsibilities Related to Prohibited Personnel Practices. Since the MSPB still doesn’t have a quorum (1,613 days and over 3,400 Petitions For Review – and counting), publishing research briefs is one function the Board is still able to complete.

This brief looks at specifics in the Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act (Kirkpatrick Act), 5 U.S.C. § 7515, which was passed unanimously by the Senate in 2017. The Kirkpatrick Act was named after a VA doctor who reported patient abuse and issues with patient medications (opioids) at the VA Medical Center where he was newly employed. Dr. Kirkpatrick made allegations that he was reprised against for being a whistleblower, and died by suicide shortly after he was removed from his position.

In case you’re not familiar, the Kirkpatrick Act sets out specific requirements for discipline against management officials who reprise against whistleblowers and other employees, specifically limited to the 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b) Prohibited Personnel Practices (PPP) 8, 9, and 14:

  • PPP 8 addresses retaliating or threatening to retaliate against a whistleblower.
  • PPP 9 addresses retaliating or threatening to retaliate against a person who exercises his/her/their right to participate in an appeal, complaint, or grievance (including as a witness), and retaliating or threatening to retaliate against an employee who refuses to obey an order that would require an individual to violate a law, rule, or regulation.
  • PPP 14 involves accessing the medical record of an employee or applicant as part of the commission of any other PPP.

If there is a finding of what MSPB in its brief refers to as a “Kirkpatrick PPP,” then specific requirements must be met in proposing discipline. We’ll discuss those below.

But first, according to the report, while “[t]he Kirkpatrick Act does not state what constitutes a determination that a Kirkpatrick PPP was committed or how to determine who committed the PPP in question,” the finding of a Kirkpatrick PPP can only be made by:

  • The head of the agency employing the supervisor;
  • An administrative law judge;
  • The MSPB;
  • The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC);
  • A judge of the United States;
  • The Inspector General (IG) of the agency.

This seems to exclude the findings of a standard misconduct investigation unless, of course, the agency head reads the ROI and decides reprisal has occurred. Once the reprisal finding is made, the Kirkpatrick Act details the following process:

The head of the agency shall:

  1. Propose a suspension of at least three days (for a first offense), or propose removal (for a second offense by the same supervisor).
  2. Provide the employee 14 days to respond to the proposal, and allow the employee to be represented and to review the material relied upon; and
  3. Exercise judgment when considering the employee’s response and deciding to implement the proposed action, with the decision due by the end of the 15th business day (5 CFR § 752.103; this timeline may be amended in the future as a result of Executive Order 14003.)

There’s another interesting caveat to the Kirkpatrick Act. It only applies to actions taken against supervisors, as defined by 5 U.S.C. § 7103(a). If you have a few minutes to look it over, the brief can be found here. It includes a nice side-by-side chart comparing Traditional Discipline with Kirkpatrick Discipline. The brief also details various training on PPPs that agencies must require (including supervisor training on Kirkpatrick discipline), so please let us know if you’d like us to help you out there. After all, it’s what we do. Hopkins@FELTG.com.

Symptoms and Vaccines: FELTG Answers Your COVID Questions

,

We covered a lot of ground during FELTG’s four-day Emerging Issues in Federal Employment Law event last month. It was a week of engaging instruction, and the questions continued to pour in days after the event ended. Not surprisingly, a lot of the questions involved current and expected pandemic-related challenges.

If you’re still looking for answers, join Attorney at Law Katherine Atkinson for EEO Challenges: COVID-19 and a Return to Workplace Normalcy on June 2 from 1:00-4:30 pm ET.

Here are a couple of questions that came in following the Emerging Issues event.

Let’s assume that there is a point where the pandemic is no longer considered a direct threat and we do not require vaccination for employees to return to work. What if an employee who refuses to be vaccinated uses the lack of vaccination as an objection to returning to the workplace? Can you take the employee off telework and require him to return to the workplace even if he is not vaccinated?

This question popped up after FELTG Instructor Katie Atkinson’s session COVID-19 and EEO: What We’ve Learned and What We Still Need to Know. Katie replied that an employee’s “objection” to returning to the workplace is irrelevant unless that person is requesting a reasonable accommodation.

Let’s look into the near future and envision a time when the world is back to pre-pandemic parameters for telework. At this point, an employee’s refusal to return to work is simply a failure to follow a direct order or an AWOL charge.

Be careful, though: If the “objection” is framed as a request for reasonable accommodation, then you need to process it as a reasonable accommodation request. Here’s an example: “I have a medical condition that necessitates telework.”

You need to determine: is the employee a qualified individual with a disability? Does he have a medical condition that substantially limits a major life activity? Can he perform the essential functions of the job while teleworking? Are there other accommodations available? Would full-time telework impose an undue hardship?

To your question about vaccinations, the employer can require the employee to return to work regardless of whether the employee is vaccinated. If the employer does not require a vaccination, then whether to get vaccinated is the employee’s choice. If this is not a reasonable accommodation situation, then it’s entirely the employer’s choice whether they want to require the employee to work in person.

An employee reports to work with symptoms of COVID. I want to send him home, but he doesn’t want to be sent home because he doesn’t have any sick leave. What leave options are there for this?

This may sound complicated, but it’s really not. As Senior Instructor Barbara Haga explained in her session Leave for the Federal Employee in 2021, there are new leave provisions that cover just this circumstance. As long as the employee is actively seeking a diagnosis as soon as possible, he would be covered. [Editor’s note: Speaking of leave, join Barbara for the 60-minute webinar Implementing the Employee Paid Provisions of the American Rescue Plan on May 26.]

Do you have a COVID-related question that needs an answer? Or another Federal employment law-related question? Ask FELTG.

The information presented here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. Contacting FELTG in any way/format does not create the existence of an attorney-client relationship.