The Year in Review: Top FELTG Newsletter Stories of 2021

,

By Dan Gephart, Training Director

Since 2018, our year-end News Flash has unveiled the most popular FELTG newsletter stories (based on the number of reads and forwards) of the previous 12 months. Usually, our most-read stories mirror FELTG Nation’s deep interest in the topics of performance, conduct, telework, and reasonable accommodation. This year was very similar, but the context within which we discussed those topics was unique, to say the least.

The year was only six days old when a violent mob stormed the Capitol, assaulted Federal law enforcement, and nearly ended the peaceful transition of power which we’ve all taken for granted. As the year ends, the ominous Omicron variant is spreading across the country and further delaying efforts to get employees back into the physical workplace.

In between those two events, FELTG and the entire Federal EEO Community lost a true giant when Ernie Hadley suddenly passed away in April. Ernie was a founder and the first President of FELTG. He wrote more than a dozen books – not just any books, but the foundational legal texts of Federal EEO law. He was brilliant, funny, and compassionate – a lover of cars, sports, music, literature. He cared deeply about civil rights. He was unafraid to change directions late in life to pursue a career in publishing.

It was a difficult and often dark year, but there were some bright spots throughout, and you – the Federal workforce – continued to do important work under trying circumstances. To better represent the constantly changing up-and-down nature of 2021, we’ve decided to frame this feature as a month-by-month look at the most-read stories.

January

For the second straight year, a photo of the U.S. Capitol graced FELTG President Deborah Hopkins’ introduction to our January newsletter. But what a difference a year made. The bucolic long shot of the Mall with the Capitol in the background circa 2020 was replaced this year by a photo of an angry mob of insurrectionists wrestling barriers away from the Capitol police (photo below).

Our most-read story in January was: Can Agency Fire Employee Who Took Part in Capitol Siege? You Decide. It’s not surprising that Deb’s story about disciplining Feds who may have taken part in the riot received so many views and forwards. Off-duty misconduct is a perennial challenge. Meanwhile, our second most-read article Requiring Vaccinations? Follow EEOC Steps to Avoid Discrimination, written by special contributor Frank Ferreri, distilled early guidance for agencies hoping to bring employees back to the workplace. Those hopes were eventually dashed, and we’d see guidance updated throughout the year.

February

Extreme political polarization has created rifts in businesses across the country. Unfortunately, the non-political Federal workplace was not immune. Our most-read article of February Does Saying ‘All Lives Matter’ Create a Hostile Work Environment? resulted, as is the case with many of our articles, from specific questions we received through our Ask FELTG feature and in our training sessions.

The second most-read article of the month details the story of an EEO director removed from her position and reassigned to another office with no involvement or influence over EEO. Why? Revisit Barbara Haga’s Director of EE Oh No! When HR Practitioners Fail to Perform.

March

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Santos v. NASA this March was a stunner. The court said that an agency must have substantial evidence that the employee was performing poorly before it is allowed to put the employee on a PIP. Just days after the decision, Deb’s story Say Goodbye to 40 Years of Case Precedent: Agencies Must Justify PIPs broke down Santos, highlighting what’s changed and, just as importantly, what hasn’t.

In the next most-read story EEOC Decision Details Everything a Manager Should Not Do, Meghan Droste dug into another recent decision. Thomasina B. v. Department of Defense serves as a textbook case of everything an agency should not do in a harassment case.

Two recent decisions. Two thoughtful, analytical, and guidance-filled articles. If you know someone who isn’t subscribed to the free FELTG Newsletter, share this link (https://feltg-stage-ada.stage3.estlandhosting.com/) with them and tell them to scroll to the bottom of the page and subscribe. They will thank you.

April

In memory of Ernie Hadley’s passing, we republished his 2013 article Are You a Microaggressor?. It was our second most-read story of the month. With microaggressions now a major training point in the Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility (DEIA) arena, it proved what we all knew: Ernie was years ahead of the curve.

Our most-read article in April was Deb’s tale about a disruptive service dog who also may not have been very good at her job – The Golden Doodle Who Wouldn’t Nuzzle: A Service Dog or Not?

May

Do you remember the hopefulness of May? Like many Americans, I had recently received my second vaccination and thought we were closing in on that thing we kept calling “normalcy.” Agencies agreed and started preparing for their employees to return to the workplace, keeping in mind that many would want to continue working from home. We shared 4 Tips to Prepare for Increase in Requests for Accommodation, Telework and it was our most-read story of the month. Meanwhile, Deb shared some great advice for how to handle SESers when they break bad – What You Should Know About SES Discipline.

June

Summer brought us another report from so-called experts pushing for at-will Federal employment – A Schedule F Look-alike Rears Its Ugly Head. In June’s most-read story, Deb reminded everyone that we don’t need civil service reform. Just follow the rules and hold employees accountable. If you’re not sure how to do that, you don’t need some “think piece” to tell you what to do. Just attend the next UnCivil Servant training on Feb. 9-10.

In our second-most read article, Meghan’s Tips From the Other Side: Retaliation is a Very Real Issue discussed the importance of training to avoid reprisal. This issue is as timely as ever as EEO offices deal with the influx of complaints related to vaccine exemption requests. Join us on January 19 for the webinar Stop the Spread of COVID-related Retaliation in the Federal Workplace.

July

Some people (I won’t say who) are predicting that we’ll have a fully functioning MSPB next year. But on that great day when a quorum returns to the Board, the new members are going to find they have an “unprecedented Herculean task” ahead of them, as FELTG Past President William Wiley put it in the most-read story of July – The To-Do List for the New MSPB Board Members.

In Should Your Agency Use Progressive Discipline or Performance Demonstration Periods With Probationers? – the second most-read article of the month – Deb answered the question in the headline with both a short answer (No!) and a long one.

August

The rates of vaccination were continuing to rise and there was hope that it could lead to a return to the physical workplace. The VA announced that some employees would be required to get COVID vaccinations. And then the backlash erupted. (This was before the vaccines were mandated via Executive Order). Government-wide, Federal EEO and HR professionals started to worry. Ann Boehm’s The Good News: If Feds Want to Force You to Discipline Them for Disobeying Mask and Vaccine Rules, You May Do So, the most-read newsletter article of August, explained how and why (based on the information available at that time) to discipline those who refused to get vaccinated.

Speaking of the VA, the Federal Circuit hit the agency with a shocker in August. In Undoing the Last Four Years: Federal Circuit Clarifies the Burden of Proof in VA Discipline, Deb explained what the Fed Circuit decision means for disciplinary actions at the VA.

September

Following President Biden’s Executive Order 14043 requiring all Federal employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19, FELTG customers had questions. Our most-read story in September was Now that Vaccines are Mandated for Federal Employees, Can You Ask an Employee to Provide Your Agency with a Copy of Their Vaccine Card?

The second most-read story – Well, Excu-u-use Me! Sometimes, Feds Say the Darndest Things – stemmed from Hansen v. DHS, No. 2017-2584. An agency proposed removal after an employee’s positive drug test for marijuana. The employee argued that he didn’t know he consumed a pot brownie at a party. He thought he felt funny from a bad bratwurst, to which the EEOC basically said baloney. [Hansen will be discussed during the 60-minute webinar High Times and Misdemeanors: Weed and the Workplace on March 3.]

October

As the vaccine mandate took hold, we heard from many of you with questions about how to handle specific scenarios. The most-read story in October – So About That Employee Who Gets Vaccinated After Being Removed – addressed one of the most likely scenarios.

After Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) asked the Government Accountability Office to look at reforming the Federal EEO process, Ann Boehm jumped in with her thoughts. The Federal EEO Process is Broken: Can We Fix It? was the second-most read story of the month.

November

Questions about the vaccine mandate continued in November. Our most-read article – Is Removing Fed for Lack of Vaccination a Potential Due Process Violation? – addressed a very real concern.

In our second most-read article, Deb highlighted a recent case involving a USPS letter carrier. The EEOC decision sent a clear message: Partially accommodating an employee without considering all his/her/their restrictions is not reasonable accommodation at all. Read about it in The Word ‘Reasonable’ Is Half of Reasonable Accommodation.

December

Time and again, we’ve told you: Issuing a letter of caution, warning, expectation, or concern, is more trouble than it’s worth. Deb explains how one of these “lesser letters” came back to haunt an agency in our most-read story of December A Letter of Caution Can Equal Reprisal – or, Another Yellow Donut Case.

And, of course, our second-most read story dealt with the vaccine mandate – Updated Guidance on Vaccine Refusals Just in Time for the Holidays.

If you’re scoring at home, that’s seven months where one of the top two most-read stories involved vaccine mandates. And in the hours after that updated guidance story was published on FELTG’s web site last week, a Federal judge in Georgia issued an injunction on the vaccine mandate for Federal contractors.

I’m sure vaccine mandates and other pandemic-related issues will continue to present challenges for the Federal workplace in the upcoming year. As we did in 2021, FELTG will continue to steer you through those challenges with the most up-to-date guidance.

Happy holidays and best wishes for a great 2022! Gephart@FELTG.com

And Now a Word With … Tinisha Agramonte on First-Generation Professionals

,

By Dan Gephart, November 8, 2022

After she entered the Senior Executive Service, Tinisha Agramonte became a sought-after speaker. She was often asked to serve on panels to discuss the obstacles she faced in climbing the career ladder. As she prepared for those conference panels, something occurred to her.

“Most of the challenges I had to navigate were connected to my low social capital (networks), lack of financial resources, and non-existent acumen on how to navigate and charter a career path when I didn’t understand the unwritten rules, social norms, and how to succeed in a professional environment, which was new territory for me,” she said.

Agramonte started talking about challenges of first-generation professionals. Despite initial reluctance from some people, many others connected with her message. As the Department of Commerce’s Office of Civil Rights Director, Agramonte created the FGP Initiative and was the force behind the First Generation Professionals Summit as well as some of the initial research on first-generation professionals.

And then the FPG Initiative’s credibility was cemented when “first-generation professionals” were included among the list of underserved communities in President Biden’s Executive Order Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Government.

“I literally cried. Several colleagues forwarded the EO to me along with congratulatory notes. Then, I learned that some of my closest allies and colleagues at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Office of Personnel Management, who were all early supporters of the FGP Initiative, made sure that FGPs were included in the EO as part of ‘underserved and underrepresented communities.’”

Agramonte left the Department of Commerce last year to become the Chief Diversity Officer at Motorola Solutions. We caught up with Agramonte recently to discuss diversity, inclusion, and her FPG initiative.

DG: Congratulations on your new job. What are the biggest differences between developing a diversity & inclusion plan in the private sector and the public sector?

TA: There’s no real difference. Both require a comprehensive assessment of the systems (policies, practices and procedures) and employee sentiments around DEI to understand what is working well and the areas of opportunities; then a holistic DEI strategy that establishes clear, meaningful, and measurable objectives and metrics aligned with business goals that address deficiencies, along with accountabilities, a communication plan, and strategy to evaluate, monitor, and report progress that will lead to long-term, sustainable outcomes.

DG: Per the Executive Order, Federal agencies are now looking closely (or at least, they should be looking closely) at their diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility practices. Where should they start in terms of addressing equity and inclusion for first-generation professionals?

TA: First, understand the practices that serve as barriers and may hinder First Gens from successfully accessing and thriving in our federal workplaces. A good place to start is to review Qualitative Research on Barriers to Workplace Inclusion for First Generation, which is the study I commissioned through the U.S. Census Bureau, to help inform the Department of Commerce’s efforts to better understand and address diversity, equity and inclusion issues for FGPs.

In terms of immediate impact, we should start with addressing potential bias in recruitment and development practices. For example, in recruitment, increase awareness of biases that seep into our recruitment, especially when people are making determinations on who and what constitutes the best and the brightest, (such as) hiring managers who feel like top talent looks like ONLY hiring students or graduates from Ivy league institutions; graduates who completed their education in four years or less; and those who have highly coveted or unpaid internships. Research has shown that first-gen students, in particular those from low-income families may not have had exposure to experiences (traveling, sporting activities, tutoring, prep programs, etc.), the financial resources, or social capital that afforded them equitable access and opportunities to be competitive for entrance to out-of-state or high tuition academic institutions; the luxury to take unpaid internships; or ability to complete school in four years while working their way through school.

Additionally, once they figure out how to access and gain entry to the workforce, the “like me” bias may work against them if leaders focus on mentoring people “like them,” who have similar lived experiences as themselves i.e., same economic status background, same schools/organizations, etc. Without those relationships, they may not have the mentoring, advocacy, and sponsorship to be developed and advanced.

DG: What was the biggest misconception you faced when creating the First-Generation Professionals Group?

TA: The biggest misconception was that there are not many people in the population, when actually about 56% of undergraduate students nationally were first generation college students. [Other misconceptions were that] there are no real barriers faced by this population; I was pitting blue collar against white collar work and low income against high income; and that this would be about giving this population a handout versus recognizing we should extend a hand by identifying and eradicating barriers like we do for other under-represented, underserved communities.

The reality is that this population represents trailblazers who have demonstrated grit, resiliency, resourcefulness, strong work ethic, and determination, which are all valuable traits for our workplaces. This is about their strengths; not deficits caused by inequitable circumstances.

“Humble beginning should not limit how far one’s talents and drive will take them.” That’s my mantra and quote.

DG: What would you say was your biggest success or most satisfying success story that came out of your First-Generation Professionals Group efforts at Commerce?

TA: The first-ever research that I’m aware of for First Generation Professionals; the Summit; the sense of community and awareness created by the Initiative; the inclusion of this population in the Executive Order. Uncovering how many leaders are First Generation Professionals who told me that they worked hard to suppress their “real story” to cover and fit in, but how this initiative made them proud of those lived experiences and gave them an identity to be proud of.

[ FELTG has created numerous training opportunities to help you meet your DEIA needs, including the following upcoming classes Managing Employee Mental Health Challenges During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic (December 9) and Honoring Diversity: Eliminating Microaggressions and Bias in the Federal Workplace (March 9, 2022). Also, DEIA topics will be discussed during Calling All Counselors: Initial 32-Hour Plus EEO Refresher Training (January 24-27, 2022). If you want to bring one of FELTG’s DEIA classes to your agency, contact Training Director Dan Gephart at Gephart@FELTG.com.]

 

Timeliness: It’s The Attempt That Counts

,

By Deborah Hopkins, October 26, 2021

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulations have long required that Federal employees (or applicants) must make a request to initiate precomplaint counseling with an EEO Counselor within 45 days of the effective date of the personnel action, event or matter alleged to be discriminatory. 29 CFR § 1614.105(a)(1). And 29 CFR § 1614.105(a)(2) states that the agency shall dismiss a complaint or a portion of a complaint that fails to comply with the applicable time limits contained in § 1614.105, unless the Agency extends the time limits in accordance with § 1614.604(c).

In a recent case, the EEOC looked at this very issue when a complainant argued her contact was timely, and the agency argued otherwise. The complainant alleged that her agency subjected her to discrimination on the basis of sex (female) when:

1. She was expelled from the Physical Security Training Program (PSTP) class at FLETC on Jan. 31, 2017; and

2. Her employment as a Law Enforcement Specialist was terminated on Feb. 8, 2017.

At the conclusion of the investigation, the agency provided the complainant with a copy of the report of investigation and notice of her right to request a hearing before an EEOC Administrative Judge (AJ). She timely requested a hearing, and the agency filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint for untimely EEO Counselor contact. The complainant timely filed an Opposition to the Agency’s Motion to Dismiss.

The complainant argued that she timely initiated EEO counselor contact when she contacted the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity Division on March 21, 2017, after obtaining the phone number from the Agency’s website. She also asserted she made additional calls and left voicemails on March 23, 24, and 27, 2017 and on an unspecified date, she was contacted by the Agency’s EEO office and directed to contact the Federal Protective Service Complaints Manager. She did so on April 5, 2017, and was directed to the FLETC EEO office.

The AJ found that the alleged discriminatory acts took place on Jan. 31, 2017, the date of the complainant’s expulsion from FLETC; and Feb. 8, 2017, the date of the complainant’s removal. Therefore, the complainant had until March 25, 2017 to contact an EEO counselor. Noting that March 25, 2017, fell on a Saturday, the AJ observed that even if the time limit was extended to the next business day (Monday, March 27, 2017), the complainant’s April 5, 2017 contact with an EEO counselor was still untimely.

The AJ reasoned that the complainant was informed of the 45-day time limit in her Welcome Packet, handbook, and termination letter, and that her argument that her contact with another office was timely, was misplaced. The AJ reasoned that where a complainant is provided clear procedural instructions regarding how and when to contact the Agency’s EEO office, a failure to follow such instructions renders attempted contact insufficient.

On March 4, 2021, the Agency issued its Final Action fully implementing the AJ’s decision, procedurally dismissing the complaint pursuant to 29 C.F.R § 1614.110(a). The complainant appealed to the Commission.

After reviewing the arguments from both sides, the Commission found the complainant initiated contact on March 21, 2017, when she called the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Both the EEO Counselor’s Report and the “Headquarters/FPS EEO Intake Form” identified March 21, 2017 as the date of initial contact.

The Commission explained:

As for the agency’s contention on appeal that this contact was insufficient and Complainant was required to contact the FLECTC EEO office, we disagree. We have consistently held that “a complainant may satisfy the criterion of Counselor contact by initiating [contact with] an agency official logically connected with the EEO process, even if that official is not an EEO Counselor.” Floyd v. National Guard Bureau, EEOC Request No. 05890086 (June 22, 1989). Here, by contacting the Agency’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, instead of a local, particular EEO office, we find that Complainant met her obligation in initiating the EEO process. Therefore, we find that Complainant’s contact regarding her February 8, 2017 termination … was timely.

Ellan C. v. Mayorkas, EEOC No. 2020003085 (Aug.19, 2021).

The EEOC remanded the case back to the agency, and ordered the agency to send the file to the hearings unit. Whether there was discrimination on the merits, we don’t yet know, but we now have another case that tells us EEOC will consider contact timely if the contact is logically related to the EEO complaint or process. For more on this and other EEO mistakes to avoid, join FELTG November 16 for the 60-minute webinar So You Think You Can Dismiss That EEO Claim. Hopkins@FELTG.com

How is the Federal Personnel Manual Related to Vaccine Refusals? … Or 10 Suggestions for Implementing the Vaccination Executive Order, Part I

,

By William Wiley, October 12, 2021

This is the first of a two-part article.

Ah, the good old days. As a fresh-faced lowly Navy Civilian Personnel Intern back in the 70s, one of the jobs that fell to me periodically was to update the Federal Personnel Management guidance. For those of you too young to have had the experience, here’s a quick history lesson. The US Civil Service Commission, followed in 1979 by the US Office of Personnel Management, published and maintained a many-volumed three-ringed-binder set of hands-on guidance relative to all the various federal laws and regulations related to managing a federal workforce. Throughout the week, every personnel office in government received by mail sheets of three-hole punched CSC/OPM guidance updates that had to be filed (CORRECTLY!) in the proper volume (I think there were about 20 volumes). In addition, each agency (and many times agency subcomponents) also issued similar to-be-filed guidance adding a specific tweak or exercising a flexibility in the overall government-wide personnel guidance.

In the Navy, that meant we got instructions from the Department of Defense, the Department of the Navy (on blue paper, of course), and then for me at the San Diego Naval Hospital, occasional additional instruction from the Navy’s Bureau of Medicine and Surgery (BUMED). All had to be filed in the correct topical-index order in the correct date order or be prepared to suffer the wrath of senior personalists who couldn’t find something. Yep, if we need to know the proper size font to use in a Letter of Reprimand, there was guidance on that and every other detail one might need to make a personnel office hum.

Then came Al Gore.

In the early part of the Clinton administration, the White House became convinced that the reason that personnel work in government (now called, affectionally, human resources) was so slow and ponderous was because of all that darned guidance. So, the President directed OPM to stop issuing or maintaining the FPM. VP Gore had the fun of setting on fire a collection of those volumes of government guidance, thereby freeing agencies to do whateverthedevil they wanted to do, constrained only by the law and the federal Code of Regulations. Yes, finally, no more updating work for the interns to do and no more detailed, front-line guidance on implementing a legal and regulatory effective human resources program. Of course, with the freedom to do whatever came the freedom to make mistakes, and the freedom not to do anything or to do it slowly because without guidance, whothedevil really knows what to do?

Since the abolishment of the FPM in the early 90s, OPM has done what it could to provide agency guidance beyond the CFR. Some years it did a better job than others. This past year OPM has provided quite helpful baseline advice to those of us in the federal employment law field. For example, on September 9, the White House mandated by Executive Order that all federal employees must receive their last dose of vaccine against COVID-19 by November 8, or be fired. In implementation of that directive, OPM now maintains a “Safer Federal Workforce” website that, among other things, tells agencies how to handle employees who decline to comply with the EO and get vaccinated. Separately, a week or so ago, OPM issued a detailed question-and-answer document entitled “Guidance on Enforcement of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination Requirement for Federal Employees – Executive Order 14043”. We may not be back in the good old FMP three-ring-binder update days, but we are pleased to see OPM in the game.

If FELTG can claim any modicum of success from these past 20 years, and if it has made any contribution at all to a successful civil service, it is that FELTG has taught forever the straightforward way to get things done, legally, fairly, and expeditiously. With that goal in mind, and in consideration of all the good work done so far by OPM, here’s a nice little 10-step how-to FELTG Checklist for you to follow to implement the COVID-19 vaccination Executive Order:

1. First, your agency will benefit greatly from an agency-wide policy regarding the mandate. As FELTG President Deb Hopkins has said, if we leave the decisions up to individual supervisors as is done under most all agency disciplinary policies, we’re going to have a really inconsistent mess on our hands. Normally, FELTG would argue for managers to be able to make individual disciplinary decisions without someone outside of the organization telling them what to do. This EO requiring removal government-wide for a very particular act of misconduct is not a normal disciplinary situation.

2. The policy should identify a Vaccine Mandate Coordinator (VMC). That office should be responsible for oversight of the program and other responsibilities enumerated below. Depending on the agency’s size, the responsibilities of the VMC might be collateral to existing duties or might be best served by the short-term employment of a full-time coordinator (a re-employed annuitant or two might be perfect). In any case, the VMC should have expertise in and receive consultation from human resources, the disability accommodation office, and the general counsel’s office.

3. The agency policy should require, initially, that the employee be notified of the required information regarding the benefits of vaccination, the ways to obtain the vaccine, and a warning that getting vaccinated is required to maintain federal employment. For evidentiary purposes, the information should be provided in a documented manner such as an email to the employee; maybe even more than once.

4. The notification also should set a deadline for the employee to provide the acceptable documentation and certification to the employee’s supervisor. OPM recommends that date be November 8. On November 9, the supervisor should forward all documentation and certifications to the agency’s VMC. If any employees have not provided the required documentation, the supervisor should identify those employees for the VMC.

5. Within 24 hours, the VMC should initiate the formal enforcement process with counseling and education. “What?!? Only 24 hours later? Around here, we can’t get out an invitation to a birthday cake cutting in the break room in fewer than three days.” Well, get better. You need to move promptly to comply with the deadlines in the EO. You can do this by centralizing the process, with the added benefit of relieving the immediate supervisor of a requirement for confronting the employee. Plus, the more time you give the employee to comply before you have to initiate a removal, the fairer you are to the employee.

OPM calls this step “counseling and education.” Here at FELTG, we would have taken the more traditional step of issuing the employee a formal reprimand. While a counseling has the appeal of sounding a bit more friendly, a reprimand is more formal, better documented, and less ambiguous. Plus, it might well engage the employee’s union representative in the discussion, perhaps adding a dose of rationality to the employee’s thinking process.

Although not a reprimand, we believe that the counseling should be documented, to add seriousness to the situation and to create defensive evidence for the agency down the road. The counseling can be very simple: “Previously, you were notified of the benefits of and government-wide requirement for federal employees to be fully vaccinated by November 21, 2021. You were given until November 8 to provide documentation that you have complied with this requirement. You have failed to meet this deadline. Therefore, you are being counseled to impress upon you the importance of this requirement. Should you fail to provide documentation of compliance within the next five days (by November 14), you will be subjected to discipline, including removal from federal service.”

You can issue the counseling by email. No need for a signed-as-received hard copy. No need to provide grievance rights (in most agencies) because you have not entered a document into the employee’s official personnel file. Be sure to include links in the counseling to the educational components relative to getting vaccinated that are available on the web.

The second part of this article, including steps 6-10, will appear in the October FELTG Newsletter next week.

Novel Coronavirus Workplace Challenges: You Already Have the Tools to Do This

,

By Deborah Hopkins, October 5, 2021

The novel coronavirus has brought about numerous novel challenges in the Federal workplace. It can be tempting to allow all these “new” issues to feel completely overwhelming. But let me share something with you that I first heard from Katie Atkinson, one of FELTG’s instructors and our resident specialist in all things related to COVID-19 and EEO. “You already have the tools to do this. Apply the facts to the existing legal framework” to get the answer you need.

I can think of a couple of areas where this is especially important both now and when return to the workplace orders are implemented.

Reasonable Accommodation

Your agency probably hadn’t received requests for disability accommodation related to a global pandemic before 2020. Now, when you receive a covid-related RA request, you should give the request the same individualized analysis as any other RA case.

1. Does the employee have a disability?

2. Is the employee a qualified individual with a disability?

3. Did the employee request accommodation?

4. Did the agency engage in the interactive process to determine potential accommodations?

5. If an accommodation is denied, is it because the accommodation would not be effective, or would be an undue hardship?

A person with a back problem who requests an ergonomic chair will benefit from the same step-by-step process as a person with asthma or diabetes who is susceptible to severe covid infection if exposed in the workplace.

The facts are new; the process is not. You already have the tools to do this. (If you need a refresher, join FELTG for on the virtual training event The Exemption Proves the Rule: Reasonable Accommodation, Discipline, and the Vaccine Mandate November 3 and we’ll show you how.)

Employee Misconduct

Agencies have been disciplining employees for misconduct under the civil service systems for more than 100 years. The facts related to the misconduct might change, but the framework does not. Whether you have an employee who misuses an agency purchase card, falsifies a timecard, refuses to wear a mask in a Federal building where there is a mask mandate, or refuses to provide proof of vaccination, the misconduct case should be handled according to law and regulation.

FELTG’s Five Elements of Discipline© will get you there:

1. Is there a rule?

2. Does the employee know the rule exists?

3. Does the agency have evidence the employee broke the rule?

4. Can the agency justify the penalty?

5 . Did the agency provide due process?

The facts are new; the process is not. You already have the tools to do this. (If you need a refresher, join FELTG for the webinar series Navigating the Return to the Federal Workplace in October and we’ll show you how.)

A reporter recently asked me if I thought the Federal government was prepared to handle the challenges that are anticipated with return to the workplace orders, and I didn’t hesitate when I said: “They absolutely are prepared. The facts are new but the process is not.” Whether you realize it or not, if you have taken training with FELTG you already know how to do this. And if you need a little refresher or a primer, we’ll be happy to help. Hopkins@FELTG.com

Three Questions About the Vaccine Requirement for Feds

,

By Deborah Hopkins, September 20, 2021

Executive Order 14043, Requiring Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination for Federal Employees, is currently the basis of a lot of conversations in the Federal employment law world, and beyond. I know it’s a potentially divisive topic, and most people have strong feelings about it. However, FELTG’s focus is not on feelings, but rather on the legal issues related to the EO.

Below are three recent questions – and our best attempt at answers based on what we know so far. Please keep in mind the guidance has been changing every few days, so we’ll keep you posted if anything new comes up.

1. What are the “exceptions as required by law” referenced in the Executive Order?

There are two primary areas where legal exceptions might be granted: as reasonable accommodation for disability, and as reasonable accommodation for religion. It’s important to understand the differences between disability accommodation and religious accommodation, as the processes and requirements are entirely different. (Join us October 12 for Handling Pandemic-Related Reasonable Accommodation Requests and Medical Documentation, the first webinar of our three-part series Navigating the Return to the Federal Workplace.) And just because someone has a valid medical reason to not get the vaccine or has a sincere religious belief or practice that prevents them from receiving the vaccine, this DOES NOT mean the agency must waive the vaccine requirement. It merely means the employee is entitled to the RA process to determine whether a reasonable accommodation is available without causing an undue hardship. (Be prepared to address whether allowing an unvaccinated worker to report for duty could cause a direct threat by putting the employee, or co-workers or members of the public, in harm’s way, which is likely an undue hardship.)

Notably, teleworkers and remote workers are NOT exempted from the vaccine mandate. According to updated guidance from the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force (issued last week), “Employees who are on maximum telework or working remotely are not excused from this requirement, including because employees working offsite may interact with the public as part of their duties and agencies may need to recall employees who are on maximum telework or working remotely.” Also, note that political beliefs or personal feelings do not provide a valid reason for legal exemption.

2. Must an employee’s religion explicitly forbid the COVID-19 vaccine for an employee to receive a religious exemption?

Fellow instructor Katie Atkinson and I discussed this topic in a recent FedUpward podcast, and we believe this is going to be an emerging area where agencies will suddenly be inundated with requests; previously religious accommodation requests have not been very common or complicated. In fact, in most agencies there’s not a designated team to assist in religious accommodation requests. We suggest that your agencies train a point person or team to be ready to handle these requests, as such exemptions must be requested by November 22. And because religious accommodation is different than disability accommodation, don’t assume your existing RA team has experience with religious accommodation requests.

Now on to the answer. No doubt you’ve seen media reports of pastors offering religious exemption certificates in exchange for donations to the church, and discussions about whether mainstream religions really forbid the covid vaccine.

For example, Pope Francis publicly stated that the Catholic Church does not forbid the COVID-19 vaccine. He called getting vaccinated “an act of love.” So, here’s an example of what you might see: a request for exemption from an employee who claims their Catholic religion forbids them from receiving the vaccine. Is that a sincere belief even though it’s contrary to mainstream Catholic Church’s stance?

No doubt we will have EEOC cases in the coming years focused on this topic, but here are a few things we already know:

  • Title VII defines “religion” to include “all aspects of religious observance and practice as well as belief.” The definition of religion is broad and includes not only traditional, organized religions, but also religious beliefs that are new or uncommon, or that seem illogical or unreasonable to others.
  • A religion does not have to be an organized, formal religion, and may include moral and ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong that are sincerely held with the strength of a traditional religious view. 29 CFR §1605.1.
  • Social, political, or economic philosophies, as well as mere personal preferences, are not ‘religious’ beliefs protected by Title VII. EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 12-I, A-2.
  • Agencies should ordinarily assume that the employee’s religious beliefs are sincerely held unless there is “an objective basis for questioning either the religious nature or the sincerity of particular belief.” 29 CFR 1605; EEOC Compliance Manual 12-I. (bold added)
  • Factors that may indicate a belief is not sincere include:
  • Whether employee has behaved in a manner markedly inconsistent with the professed belief
  • Whether accommodation sought is a particularly desirable benefit that is likely to be sought for secular reasons
  • Whether the timing of the request renders it suspect (e.g., it follows an earlier request by the employee for the same benefit for secular reasons)
  • And whether the employer otherwise has reason to believe the accommodation is not sought for religious reasons

EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 12-I, A-2.

As you can see, this area is ripe for potential exploration, perhaps specifically on the sincerity of beliefs. Join us in October for Navigating the Return to the Federal Workplace.

3. If employees refuse the vaccine and don’t qualify for a legal exemption, must agencies use progressive discipline?

I can’t count the number of times in recent days I have seen reports that agencies will or should employ progressive discipline for employees who refuse to get the vaccine. Is progressive discipline (reprimand, suspension, removal) a tool agencies may use in these cases? Yes. Is it mandatory? Unless there’s an agency policy that says so, no. The Task Force guidance says that in cases of employee refusal to be vaccinated agencies “should pursue disciplinary measures, up to and including removal from Federal service.”

As we’ve discussed previously, employees who refuse a mandate to get vaccinated may be removed, even for a first offense. See Mazares, Jr. v. Navy, 302 F.3d 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2002). But some agencies may take the approach that a reprimand and/or suspension should come first, as an attempt to give the employee a chance to correct his misconduct before a removal is proposed.

Be mindful of the charge your agency uses when disciplining an employee for not being vaccinated. Will the agency go with a charge such as “failure to follow instructions” or “refusal to be vaccinated against COVID-19,” or will it choose to look at these cases as “failure to maintain a condition of employment”?

We’ll keep you posted as things continue to develop. Don’t miss the last call for registrations for Federal Workplace 2021: Accountability, Challenges and Trends, where we’ll talk about all this and more. Hopkins@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

 

And Now a Word With … Ambassador Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley

, ,

By Dan Gephart, August 23, 2021

A year ago, the concept of “diversity training” was as welcome in the Federal workplace as a squirrel at a dog park.

But it’s now been almost seven months since President Joe Biden took office and immediately issued two Executive Orders aimed not just at bringing back diversity training, but also at improving the diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility of the Federal workplace – and the customers it serves.

This sudden about-face has left many agencies scrambling to figure out how to meet the goals laid out in those two Executive Orders, as well as the third diversity-related EO issued a couple months later.

We reached out to Ambassador Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley, who was recently named the first Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer at the US Department of State. Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley’s 30-year diplomatic career includes stints advising the Commander of U.S. cyber forces on our foreign policy priorities, expanding State’s counterterrorism partners and programs, and coordinating the largest evacuation of American citizens from a war zone since WWII. She remains the longest serving U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Malta.

Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley is not opposed to taking on another difficult challenge. After all, State is sometimes derided as too “male, pale and Yale.” Ambassador Abercrombie-Winstanley’s focus early on in her tenure as Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officers has been on getting the right data and finding the barriers to diversity.

DG: Everyone seems to have different definitions of diversity and/or inclusion. How do you define the terms?

GA: Diversity, of course, is a nice broad term that can mean any number of things. Our focus is on those who are underrepresented in the Department of State and part of protected classes as EEO lays them out. It’s a pretty specific definition on the one hand with how we’re going to be judged. In the department, we include a wide variety of aspects of human beings – backgrounds, perspectives, lived experiences brought about by visible differences, that is how we would define the diversity aspect of it.

The inclusion part and the accessibility part aren’t ensuring that everyone reaches same destination or same level because that’s impossible, but that everyone has ability to reach their potential within our organization. What we want not to do is waste talent. We don’t want to waste the money we spend on training, or on fellowships for people to join the State Department. The money from our budget is taxpayer money. If people are feeling stymied, unfairly disadvantaged, or discriminated against or dis-included, you’re wasting the talent, the resources. Our job is to make sure we make measurable improvements in those areas.

DG: What is your top priority or first goal as Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer?

GA: Two things we started doing my first day as secretary were communication and messaging. We have talked about (the value of diversity) a long time, and there’s a high level of skepticism in our organization. Why is this going to be any different than last time? We have to combine not only giving the message in a consistent, clear, and measurable way, but we also have to build the trust. Building the trust means listen to what we say and watch what we do.

To measure our accomplishments, we have to know where we are right now. We have done some work. One of my colleagues said “Gina, nothing but the hard stuff left for you.” You have to get that baseline, as everybody knows.

We are grappling with the numbers. Many don’t self-report. We want to know why (they) didn’t. There are several reasons, (such as) they thought it wouldn’t make a difference. But that information goes into how much money we give, how much effort we give, and how much success we will have.

DG: In your experience, what are the challenges faced by members of historically underrepresented groups within the State Department?

GA: I hosted an extraordinary roundtable yesterday on the anniversary of the ADA — me interviewing four employees, two posted overseas and two domestic, who have disabilities of various sorts. They talked about what works, what has been helpful from managers and supervisors, and what can we do to ensure their inclusion and their success. I was taking notes as furiously as anyone at that table.

Of our four panelists, only two had self-identified themselves. I’m sure both will go in and do it in short order. We need people to understand that the data on race, gender, sexual orientation, disability that we need to collect … none of that is connected to names. It’s anonymous data. What percentage we have. It doesn’t come with names, just the categories of the protected classes.

People say, “I don’t want to identify, maybe someone will discriminate against me.” And then I talk about the intersectionality of it, that we are responsible for each other. There are women and people of color who can’t hide it. We need to demand our organization value us for who we are.”

DG: Is it harder to do this job being the first person to hold the title, or do you think that it provides you freedom in that you’re not beholden to doing things a certain way?

GA: I have to spend time building. I hope we don’t have to pass the baton too many times. Our plan is to make our changes systemic. It’s just how we do business. I’m the first diversity and inclusion officer, but the department has made some changes over time. Work has been done in different smaller subtexts. Our Office of Civil Rights has done work. We’re trying to consolidate some of that, so we’re not reinventing the wheel here.

We really have to scrub those numbers, get that data. Whatever we do in this organization is going to be data-based. We have a lot of anecdotal evidence, but I want black and white. We have women not getting to senior positions. We have 87 percent of European Americans in leadership positions – a proportion that does not reflect the ability of everyone within the organization. Why does that happen? What are the choke points?

We have to identify what the barriers are, determine whether we’re asking the wrong questions, or is something wrong with how we advertised the position. Barrier analysis is a major tool in what we have to get after. A little of that has been done already, but my office intends to do it in a robust fashion.

DG: Is there a measure or mark by which you will judge your success? In other words, what will success look and feel like to you once the State Department’s diversity and inclusion goals have been met?

GA: The long-term goal — no quotas, no numerical target, per se. Our organizations should look like America, but it’s very clear we’re not near that. We must make sure that we have everything in place so that if people enter in this career and they have the ability to do this career and they have the willingness to do this hard work because being a diplomat is hard work, but very gratifying … if people are willing to give themselves to public service, it’s incumbent on us to get the unnecessary barriers out of their way. And that’s what we’ll look at as success. Gephart@FELTG.com

FELTG Instructor Marcus Hill contributed to this article.

Undoing the Last Four Years: Federal Circuit Clarifies the Burden of Proof in VA Discipline

, , ,

By Deborah Hopkins, August 13, 2021

Over the last four years, the VA has enjoyed a lower burden of proof in taking disciplinary actions against employees covered by the VA Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act, 38 USC 714. Indeed, Congress passed this law in 2017 to make it easier to fire bad employees at the VA.

Between then and today, we have learned that the law is not retroactive for actions that occurred prior to its enactment (Sayers v. VA, 954 F.3d 1370 (Mar. 31, 2020); Brenner v. VA, No. 2019-2032 (Mar. 9, 2021)) and that, while MSPB has no penalty mitigation authority in actions taken under this law, agencies must show by substantial evidence that their selected penalty is reasonable. Mogil v. VA, No. 2018-1673 (Fed. Cir. May 1, 2019). Ok, fine. We can live with that.

Now, get ready.

On August 12, the Federal Circuit hit us with a big one. In this case, a Supervisory Consumer Affairs Specialist named Ariel Rodriguez yelled and used profanity at a patient in a VA facility. The confrontation escalated and the police were called. The police had to escort Rodriguez to his office because he was so agitated. After that, Rodriguez returned to the reception area, where he again confronted the patient. During the investigation that followed, Rodriguez was dishonest in his account of the events that occurred. He also attempted to influence one of his employees to alter her testimony to the investigator.

Rodriguez was removed on three charges: (1) disruptive behavior toward a veteran patient; (2) conduct unbecoming a federal supervisor, and (3) lack of candor. The facts justified an easy removal for the VA – or so we all thought. Plenty of witnesses, police activity, a patient’s wellbeing in danger, clear nexus – no question there was substantial evidence of misconduct and substantial evidence to support removal.

But wait.

The Federal Circuit saw things differently. There are two huge new takeaways that every management official at the VA must be aware of, courtesy of this case, Rodriguez v. VA, No. 2019-2025 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 12, 2021).

  1. The standard of proof for a VA to take a disciplinary action is a PREPONDERANCE of the evidence; the substantial standard in the statute only refers to MSPB’s review of the action.
  2. The VA must complete a Douglas factors analysis for its disciplinary actions, even though the MSPB lacks authority to mitigate the agency’s penalty.

Let’s look at each in turn.

  1. Burden of Proof

For the past four years, just about everyone in this business has been under the impression that the language in 38 USC 714(d)(2)-(3) “if the decision is supported by substantial evidence” meant that the agency action also required the substantial evidence standard. It’s even in the VA’s Discipline policy.

But the Federal Circuit said otherwise:

The references to “substantial evidence” in section 714 are all explicitly directed to the standard of review to be applied by administrative judges and the Board. Those references do not address the standard of proof to be applied by the DVA in making disciplinary determinations, nor does the remaining text of section 714 explicitly address the standard of proof in proceedings before the DVA…[T]he language of section 714 implies that the proper standard is the preponderance of the evidence. Section 714 provides that an employee may be removed, demoted, or suspended “if the Secretary determines the performance or misconduct of the covered individual warrants” such action. In the case of a disciplinary action based on misconduct, the requirement that the Secretary “determine” that the misconduct in question warrants disciplinary action implies that the Secretary must find that it is likely, i.e., more likely than not, that the employee has engaged in the misconduct that justifies the proposed discipline. [bold added]

The court’s explanation included discussion that if substantial evidence was the standard used, a Deciding Official would be required to find against the employee with regard to the charged misconduct even if the Deciding Official did not personally agree with that conclusion, because when substantial evidence is applied, a reasonable person might disagree and yet the standard is still met. The court said in no uncertain terms that the VA Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act does not contain “any language stating explicitly, or even implicitly, that the burden of proof in disciplinary actions should be substantial evidence.”

Because the agency applied the substantial evidence standard in this case, what we now know is an incorrect standard, it was remanded back to the MSPB.

  1. Douglas Factors

Because the VA Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act explicitly states that the MSPB does not have the authority to mitigate the agency’s penalty (38 USC 714(d)(2)(B)), in the first year or two after the law’s enactment the VA was (and the rest of us were) under the impression that Douglas factors were not required. In other words, if a penalty could not be mitigated, then there was no need to justify the penalty – and penalty defense is the primary reason why agencies use the Douglas factors.

Starting in 2019, the Federal Circuit determined that there must be substantial evidence the agency’s penalty is reasonable, otherwise the MSPB could remand a case back to an agency to determine a more appropriate penalty. Mogil, above.

The court in Rodriguez takes things further and says, “this court has made clear that the absence of mitigation authority does not deprive the Board of the authority to review penalties for substantial evidence” and that mitigation authority is completely divorced from “the power to review and strike down the DVA’s imposition of penalties that are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with law.” To that end:

For a reviewing tribunal to find a decision not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law, that decision must have been based “on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment…” [citation omitted] Accordingly, because the Board must review the DVA’s penalty selection in a section 714 case, that review must ensure that the DVA considered the relevant factors bearing on the penalty determination.

The court emphasized this point by declaring the Deciding Official must “weigh the relevant factors bearing on the appropriateness of the penalty, including the relevant Douglas factors” in cases of misconduct. So, there it is.

There is a whole lot more to discuss from this decision, but we’ll tackle those issues another time. As for now, we are anticipating multiple years’ worth of cases will be remanded to determine whether the VA had a preponderance of the evidence, and not merely substantial evidence, in taking appealable disciplinary actions. The good news for the VA is, preponderance is not too difficult to show, and I would bet they can meet this burden in nearly every case. The bad news is there’s a whole lot more work ahead. Please let us know how we can help – and attend UnCivil Servant September 8-9 or MSPB Law Week September 13-17 for all the details on what happens now. Hopkins@FELTG.com

And Now a Word With … FedUpward Podcaster Love Rutledge

,

By Dan Gephart, August 3, 2021

It’s unanimous here at FELTG. The headquarters team and our instructors are beyond tired of hearing the hackneyed tropes about bad Federal employees running amok. That’s why we teach courses like our flagship UnCivil Servant: Holding Employees Accountable for Performance and Conduct, so that you can take direct action against the few misbehaving and poor-performing Feds who ruin the reputations of everyone else.

Federal employee Love Rutledge is also fed up with the “caricature.”

“We’re either lazy, dumb, and couldn’t find better jobs elsewhere; or we’re scheming deep-staters who plot to take down certain segments of the population,” she said. “Obviously, we’re neither. Most Federal employees work hard, serve the public and do the best they can every day.”

Love was so incensed with this mischaracterization she had to do something about it. She launched FedUpward, a podcast where Federal civil servants can find “inspiration, motivation and practical tips.” She dropped her first podcast in October 2019 and just surpassed the 100-episode mark last month. Recent podcast episodes have included interviews with FELTG President Deborah Hopkins (Performance Management and the Santos vs. NASA Ruling) and FELTG instructors Katherine Atkinson (Can My Manager Ask Me THAT When I Return to the Office), Marcus Hill (Network with Senior Executives and Work on Government’s Big Challenges) and Shana Palmieri (How Feds Can Maintain Mental Health and Help Others).

Finding free time isn’t easy for Love. She’s also a full-time Federal employee and the mother of two young children. But she took some time answer a few FELTG questions.

DG: What’s the best piece of advice for Feds you’ve learned over your 100-plus episodes?

LR: There’s rarely a challenge a Federal employee faces that hasn’t been faced by others. The more we collaborate across agency and department lines, the more efficient we can be.

DG: What is something you learned via your podcast that really surprised, saddened, or angered you?

LR: I’ve had several Feds reach out to me who’ve experienced truly toxic managers, retaliation for reporting bad behavior, and full-on discrimination. Those are the more frustrating messages I get. We cannot attract and retain talented public servants while treating folks badly.

DG: How was your work life changed by the pandemic?

LR: As a parent to two young children, the pandemic has been absolutely brutal. My husband and I are fortunate to have resources that gave us options, but few good options existed for childcare over the last year plus. Mama is TIRED. I think many Fed parents can relate to the sense of exhaustion and lack of control that we’ve faced during the COVID crisis. And we’re still facing it. For those of us with children under 12, our options for activities and childcare remain quite limited. I doubt you can find any parents who say they had a good work/life balance over the last 16 or so months.

DG: What should agencies do to improve the overall morale of their workforce? 

LR: Everyone wants to feel appreciated for what they do. Truly listening to employees to understand their concerns, supporting their growth, and providing flexibility where possibleall go a long way toward employee engagement and satisfaction.

DG: Say someone is reading about your podcast here for the first time. Why should that person listen to your podcast?

LR: People listen to my show to get first-person perspectives on current issues, to connect with Feds going through the same issues they face, and to learn about resources they might not otherwise discover. I hope your readers not only listen to the podcast at FedUpward.com or wherever they get their podcasts, but also reach out to tell me what they want to know.

In her very first episode, Love explained the reasons for launching the podcast. Besides looking for more good news about Feds, she wanted more information for younger and middle-aged Feds, and she’d like to see agencies do more to attract younger people.

“In most of the trade publications, you still see their advertisers are hearing aid companies and bath remodelers who support customers’ loss of mobility,” she said. “I’d love to see that shift and have professional organizations for federal employees support people of all ages — and not just Young Government Leaders, who provides those opportunities now.” Gephart@FELTG.com