We Don’t Need Civil Service Reform, Part I

, ,

By Deborah Hopkins, July 17, 2019

Yes, you read that title correctly. Despite what you hear and read in the media and from politicians who don’t know our business, We Don’t Need Civil Service Reform. The system is not broken. We just need federal supervisors to use the tools the law has made available for the past 40 years. And we just need advisors to counsel the supervisors about how the system works, and to support them through the process.

Here are a few things it’s important to know:

  • Holding employees accountable is not as difficult as you think it is.
  • Holding employees accountable is not as time-consuming as you think it is.
  • Holding employees accountable does not take as much evidence as you think it does.

In a three-part series of articles this summer, I will explain each of the above statements in detail, starting with the first.

Holding employees accountable is not as difficult as you think it is.

In our FELTG training classes, we present the conduct and performance accountability tools in checklist order. The checklists are easy to follow, make it easy to confirm you have the evidence you need, and make it easy to verify that you aren’t missing an important legal requirement and as a result jeopardizing your case. We spend time in our seminars going through each step, citing to relevant statutes, regulations, case law, and best practices, to be sure the process and requirements are absolutely clear, and to help ensure your case is defensible.

In DISCIPLINE cases, the checklist looks like this:

  1. Is there a reasonable rule in place?
  2. Did the employee have notice of the rule?
  3. Do you have proof the employee violated the rule?
  4. Can you defend your penalty?
  5. Did you provide the employee due process?

Do NOT jump to step 4 and choose a penalty if you don’t have steps 1-3 covered. If you do you will lose your case. It really IS that simple.

In PERFORMANCE cases, the checklist looks like this:

  1. Has the employee been issued a performance plan with legally sufficient critical elements identified?
  2. Has the employee been given a warm-up period to get used to the performance standards?
  3. Can you articulate why the employee is performing at an unacceptable level on at least one critical element?
  4. Did you give the employee an opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance?
  5. Did you provide the employee legally-required assistance during the demonstration period?
  6. Do you have documentation the employee did not perform acceptably during the demonstration period?
  7. If the employee was not successful during the demonstration period, did you provide the employee due process?

Same thing here, don’t jump to step 4 and initiate a demonstration period (what we used to call a PIP) if you haven’t met the requirements of steps 1-3 first. If you do you will lose your case. It really IS that simple.

Let me say it again. It really is that simple.

You’ll have to come to our classes to get the full details on how to implement these checklists, and what is required for each step, but I promise it will be well worth your time. Do not believe what you read or hear in the media about how it is too difficult to deal with problem employees. Do not buy into the idea that civil service protections need to be stripped away to make the government a more efficient place. Do not look at the one case where a bad employee got her job back because of a procedural issue and think that you have no chance of getting your own action to stick; if you are on the management side, the odds are strongly in your favor that you will win your case.

Join us next time for Part II, where we discuss how holding employees accountable is not as time-consuming as you think it is. In fact, if you’ve got a problem employee, there’s a good chance you can have them off your payroll before the end of the summer. Stay tuned. Hopkins@FELTG.com

More Questions about Federal Employees Who Use Marijuana

, ,

By Deborah Hopkins, July 17, 2019

As marijuana is legalized in more states around the U.S., the questions FELTG receives regarding marijuana use by federal employees continue to come in. (If you haven’t already, check out my first article on the topic, Can Federal Employees Smoke Pot?) Below are some recent questions sent to the FELTG question desk, and along with each answer comes the disclaimer that this article is not intended to provide legal advice, is for training purposes only, and does not create an attorney-client relationship with any of the questioners.

Question 1:

Hello and good afternoon,

I have a question about the use of marijuana by federal employees. Since its use has been cleared in Canada for all who are 18 and over, can a federal employee with the U.S. be charged for just using it there? Upon returning to work, even days after using, he/she may not pass a drug test. Technically, a federal employee in Canada is subject to Canada laws and not those of the United States, correct?

Thanks and look forward to your response,

[Name Redacted]

And our FELTG-response:

Well, that’s a creative way to look at things, but you won’t like my answer. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that because an activity is legal in a certain jurisdiction, that activity can’t be considered misconduct for the purposes of federal employee discipline. For example, in over 40 countries around the world domestic violence is legal. But if a federal employee happens to work for the State Department in Armenia, which is one of the countries that does not see domestic violence as a crime or civil infraction, that employee can still be disciplined for physically assaulting her spouse, if the agency can find a nexus between the conduct and the federal job.

Of course, we don’t even need to look at such an extreme example. Take a read of what then-OPM Director Archuleta put in a 2015 memo to agency heads, which is still true today:

Marijuana is categorized as a controlled substance under Schedule I of the Controlled Substance Act.  Thus knowing or intentional marijuana possession is illegal, even if an individual has no intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense marijuana. In addition, Executive Order 12564, Drug-Free Federal Workplace, mandates that (a) Federal employees are required to refrain from the use of illegal drugs; (b) the use of illegal drugs by Federal employees, whether on or off duty, is contrary to the efficiency of the service; and (c) persons who use illegal drugs are not suitable for Federal employment. The Executive Order emphasizes, however, that discipline is not required for employees who voluntarily seek counseling or rehabilitation and thereafter refrain from using illegal drugs … Drug involvement can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, judgment, and trustworthiness or ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations, thus indicating his or her employment might not promote the efficiency or protect the integrity of the service.

So even if marijuana is legal in a jurisdiction (Canada, or elsewhere), it is illegal for a federal employee to use marijuana in any form – smoke, edibles, tinctures, pens, etc. – at any time, if they are employed by a federal agency. If you fail a drug test, you can probably kiss your job goodbye, even if the drug was legal where you used it. In fact, in one of the last MSPB decisions we ever got, all the way back in December 2016, the MSPB affirmed an indefinite suspension for an employee who used marijuana and whose security clearance was under review. Palafox v. Navy, 2016 MSPB 43 (December 20, 2016).

Bottom line: The federal government takes marijuana use seriously. If you want to keep your job, don’t use it anywhere, anyhow.

Question 2:

Hello, I am starting a position with the [agency redacted] soon as a [job title redacted]. I’ve used marijuana prior to this position and am thinking of continuing to do so while there. What should I take into consideration while making this decision, and what consequences can I face if I fail a drug test? The position is very low level, barely a step above intern, for context.

Thanks for the hypothetical question. Federal employees may not legally use marijuana in any form, whether recreational or medicinal. If they do, they can be removed, either for misconduct or for suitability reasons. And if you’re a probationer, you won’t even get to the conduct or suitability question – you’ll just be out. You need to realize the risk you are taking if you choose to violate this federal statute.

While job level and type is a Douglas factor, when the misconduct violates a federal statute, the weight of the offense carries far more significance than the level of job you hold. (By the way, probationers don’t even get the benefit of a Douglas-justification in removals for marijuana use.)

Question 3:

Can you work for the federal government and still use medical marijuana?

Sure you can. Until you get caught, that is, and then you can be removed because it is illegal to use marijuana while you are a federal employee.

No matter how many different ways you ask the question, my answer is going to be the same. Unless and until Congress passes a law that says marijuana is not illegal, federal employees should just say no. Hopkins@FELTG.com

A 75-cent Purchase Can Save Your Entire Case – and Help You Sleep at Night

, ,

By Deborah Hopkins, June 12, 2019

In my travels across the globe teaching federal supervisors about the federal government’s accountability systems, one of the most-often-asked questions involves what supervisors can do to better their chances of defending their actions. Do they need more evidence? Witness statements? Video logs? A track record of poor performance a mile long?

All of that is fine, but I have an easier answer and it costs about 75 cents: an old-fashioned notebook. In the 40-plus years since the Civil Service Reform Act went into effect, we have seen case after case that hinged on contemporaneous note-taking – or the lack thereof – by agency supervisors or other management officials. I tell all the new supervisors I train that they need to go out to their nearest office supply store, and get a notebook pronto, since supervising in the federal government is a defensive practice.

While supervisors are generally given the benefit of the doubt in credibility determinations, the best way to supplement and enrich testimony is by producing contemporaneous notes. And the preference by administrative judges, still to this day, are hand-written notes as opposed to computer logs or even notes supervisors email themselves to document workplace events.

Let’s take a look at three types of cases where notes were the make-or-break point for the agency: Discipline, Whistleblower Reprisal, and EEO Complaints. We’ll look at a case the agency won (because of the notes) and a case the agency lost (because there were no notes, or there was a problem with the notes) in each category.

Discipline: Agency Winner

In our first case today, we have a removal case where the appellant engaged in multiple acts of misconduct, including failure to follow supervisory instructions. He disclosed the details of an ongoing agency investigation after his supervisor directly told him not to speak about it. The MSPB administrative judge (AJ) found that the agency failed to prove the charge of failure to follow supervisory instructions because the supervisor could not recall the exact words she used when giving an order to the employee. But the MSPB reversed the AJ’s finding and determined that the supervisor’s contemporaneous notes made shortly after the conversation with the employee, even though they were not a verbatim word-for-word recollection, supplemented her testimony. The charge was then sustained. Von Muller v. DOE, 101 MSPR 91 (Feb. 13, 2006).

Discipline: Agency Loser

In another failure to follow instructions case dealing with an agency investigation, the agency removed an employee for improper conduct because the employee failed to cooperate in an investigation, and failed to obey a supervisor’s order to leave the premises after his tour of duty had ended. At hearing, the supervisor’s testimony was different from what he had written in his contemporaneous notes about the situation, and that inconsistency led to a lack of credibility before the judge and, ultimately, before the MSPB. Because of the inconsistency in the notes, and the lack of any additional supporting evidence for the agency’s charge, the removal was mitigated to a 21-day suspension. Eichner v. USPS, 83 MSPR 202 (Aug. 6, 1999).

Whistleblowing: Agency Winner

When an agency takes an action against a whistleblower, the burden of proof rises from preponderance of the evidence or substantial evidence, depending on the type of case, to clear and convincing evidence. Clear and convincing evidence is a heavy burden, defined in the case law as “That measure of degree of proof that produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief as to the allegations sought to be established.” Schnell v. Army, 114 MSPR 83 (2010).

A whistleblower at DOJ was given a performance rating he did not agree with, and challenged the rating as an act of whistleblower reprisal. The agency was able to show clear and convincing evidence that the rating was warranted because, in addition to the supervisor’s specific testimony about the appellant’s performance issues, the supervisor had contemporaneous documentation that supported his observations. In addition, the agency was able to show that the appellant had performance problems prior to whistleblowing, and that documented complaints about the appellant’s performance came from outside chain of command. That, folks, is clear and convincing evidence. Rumsey v. DoJ, 2013 MSPB 82.

Whistleblowing: Agency Loser

The appellant blew the whistle on her supervisor, alleging harassment and intimidation and claiming that management and the EEO office had not taken any action. Shortly thereafter, she was informed that she was being reassigned. According to the appellant, when she questioned the reason for her reassignment she was informed by the VA hospital’s lead employee/labor relations specialist that the reassignment was due to her allegations of a hostile work environment involving her supervisor. The only evidence the agency presented in response to this allegation was two general statements, in affidavit form, denying that the reassignment was due to whistleblowing, but that it was because the appellant was unhappy with her supervisor. No additional evidence or documentation was provided, so the agency did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the reassignment was not whistleblower reprisal. Moore v. DVA, DA-1221-13-0213-W-1 (March 10, 2015) (NP).

EEO: Agency Winner

In an interesting religious accommodation case, an employee requested to be allowed to wear a nine-inch ceremonial blade in the workplace, even though she worked in a federal building and the blade violated the security requirements. The agency could have simply said no because allowing the kirpan would have been more than a de minimis burden, but in an exercise of good faith, the agency also contemporaneously documented attempts to accommodate the employee including considering full-time telework and alternative work locations. Neither of these options worked with the employee’s job requirements, and the agency prevailed in showing that it did not engage in religious discrimination of the complainant because it documented the accommodation attempts. Tagore v. United States, 735 F.3d 324 (5th Cir. Tex. 2013).

EEO: Agency Loser

The complainant applied for a promotion and was not selected. She filed a complaint alleging discrimination based on race, sex, and reprisal for prior EEO activity. The four selection panel officials admitted the complainant was qualified but could not explain why she was not selected. There were no notes, scores or specific explanations of the scoring process in the record. One of the selection panel members asserted that he did not remember why she was not selected but that he “could only assume” her application did not show she had the skills needed to work at a higher level. That lack of contemporaneous documentation cost the agency the case. Hatcher-Capers v. USPS, EEOC No. 07A60008 (2006).

There are hundreds of other cases that show how contemporaneous documentation – or the lack thereof – is the deciding factor. Don’t let the next Loser case be yours; go buy a notebook today. Hopkins@FELTG.com

Drafting Unauthorized Absence Charges: How to Write the Specification(s)

, ,

By Deborah Hopkins, June 12, 2019

One of the more common categories of questions we get at FELTG involves the exceedingly technical area of drafting disciplinary charges. Here’s a recent note that came to us:

I have an employee who is being charged with unauthorized absence for a period of time. The specification(s) read something to the effect “You were absent from duty beginning January 28, 2019 through March 22, 2019 without authorization.”

There is a debate as to whether each day the employee was absent should be listed as a separate specification versus how it’s written above. I believe either specification spells out the conduct the Agency can prove. Any recommendations?

And the FELTG response:

Thanks for the email. I can’t give legal advice on your specific situation, but I can speak to the principle of drafting charges in general. When you charge an employee with misconduct you have to prove every single word in the charge. If there’s one word you can’t prove, you lose the whole charge – even if you have mountains of evidence the employee did something wrong. Check out Parkinson v. DoJ, SF-0752-13-0032-I-1, (October 10, 2014) (NP); Thomas v. USPS, 116 MSPR 453 (2011); Burroughs v. Army, 918 F.2d 170 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Brott v. GSA, 2011 MSPB 52.

When it comes to specifications for charges, you don’t always have to prove every word (though that’s the goal), but you do have to prove the “essence” of the specification. We know from the case law that this means you have to get it pretty close to perfect, but if you get a word or a number wrong you still might get to keep the specification. See, e.g., Russo v. USPS, 284 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

Also worth noting, if you have multiple specifications and lose some of those specifications, your charge will still stand – as long as at least one specification sticks. But the more specifications you lose, the more wiggle room it gives MSPB to mitigate your penalty, if the penalty starts to fall outside the bounds of reasonableness.

The danger in [hypothetically] charging something like “absent from duty beginning January 28, 2019 through March 22, 2019 without authorization” is that if during even one of those days the employee was entitled to be absent (let’s say he was incapacitated for duty because of the flu and he had sick leave on the books) then you could lose the entire charge if the adjudicator thinks you have lost the “essence” of the specification. If even a day within the entire span of absence was authorized, have you still proven the specification?

There’s a strong argument to be made that the “essence” is still there, but this is now moving into a gray area. What about the weekends that are included in the span of those dates, when the employee wasn’t supposed to be at work? Is that inclusion of weekends far enough away from the “essence” of the specification, for you to lose you the whole charge? I am not sure I’d want to take on that battle, especially when there is a much easier way to handle this kind of case.

The alternative way of drafting the charge is to list each day of absence as its own specification; that way even if it turns out that for a few of those days the employee would have been entitled to leave, the charge could still stand based on the remaining specifications.

Charge: Unauthorized Absence

Specification A: 8 hours on January 28, 2019

Specification B: 8 hours on January 29, 2019

Specification C: 8 hours on January 30, 2019

Specification D: 8 hours on January 31, 2019

Etc.

It seems like a bit more work to do things this way, but we have learned to be exceedingly conservative when drafting charges. MSPB has traditionally been technical on how it looks at charge drafting, and (if we ever get an MSPB again) we can assume that the new Board members will follow nearly 40 years of precedent in this area.

For more on charge drafting plus a whole lot more, join FELTG in Washington, DC for MSPB Law Week September 9-13. I hope we’ll see you there. Hopkins@FELTG.com

Civil Service Status Update

,
By Deborah Hopkins, May 21, 2019
    A lot has happened over the last few weeks as it pertains to the world of federal employment law. Here’s a recap, in case you missed anything.
    • MSPB: We finally have a third nominee for the MSPB. Chad Bungard was recently nominated by the President to be the Vice Chairman, for a term that expires in 2025. Among other positions, he previously served as General Counsel at MSPB for several years. As of today, there is no date for a committee vote on his nomination. When might we see the Board back at full capacity? Your guess is a good as ours.
    • Executive Orders: In early April, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments in the case dealing with the legality of President Trump’s Executive Orders issued May 25, 2018. Most of the discussion dealt with jurisdictional issues and whether the court, or the FLRA, is the proper forum to discuss challenges to these EOs.
    • FLRA: Speaking of labor relations, the General Counsel seat at the FLRA has been empty for two years, but the President nominated Catherine Bird, who is currently Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration (ASA) at the Department of Health and Human Services.
    • EEOC: The EEOC has a quorum for the first time since January – and it has a new Chair as well. On May 15, nearly two years after she was first nominated, Janet Dhillon was sworn in as the EEOC’s 16th Chair for a term that expires July 1, 2022.
    • OPM: The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs recently voted to advance OPM Director nominee Dale Cabaniss to the Senate for a confirmation vote. If confirmed she will be the third person to hold this position in just over two years.
    • OPM’s demise: Last week, the administration unveiled the Administrative Services Merger Act, which would effectively eliminate OPM by reorganizing it into a subcomponent of GSA. Under the proposed structure, the person in charge of federal workforce policy would be a non-Senate-confirmed political appointee. As you can imagine, not everyone is happy about this potential change. Because this is a piece of proposed legislation, both the House and Senate will have to agree in order for it to be signed into law by the President.
    • LGBTQ employment protections: A few weeks ago, the Supreme Court agreed to look at whether Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination includes an employee’s LGBTQ status. Arguments are on the docket this fall. Also, last week the House passed the Equality Act, which among other things would make protections for LGBTQ federal employees a statutory right. The Senate and the President would need to sign off on this piece of legislation in order for it to become law.
    As you can see, there is a lot going on, and plenty more to come. Stick with FELTG and we’ll keep you posted. Hopkins@FELTG.com