Three Lessons Learned from the New MSPB’s Decisions

, ,

By Deborah Hopkins, April 11, 2022

My morning routine has changed significantly in the last few weeks. Now, along with my coffee, instead of reading the news, I’ve been eagerly checking the MSPB website for new cases (a decision on a PFR is officially called Opinion & Order, or O & O) issued by the Board. They’ve issued a few dozen decisions so far. Ann Boehm will touch on some of these cases in her Federal Employment Law Update: Significant Cases and Developments session during Emerging Issues in Federal Employment Law later this month.

Until then, here are three takeaways from our first read of the cases.

1 – The Board is keeping non-precedential (NP) decisions, though not all are lengthy. FELTG has long advocated that the Board do away with NP decisions, since they don’t add anything significant to the body of MSPB case law (5 CFR 1201.117), but alas, we don’t always get what we wish for. In fact, in our recent interview with Acting Chair/Vice Chair Raymond Limon, he informed us that NP decisions were here to stay.

That said, most of the NP cases the Board has issued are only a page or two. And of the longer ones that contain a more detailed discussion of the merits, we’ve seen some interesting things, including:

  • This Board’s interpretation of how many specifications must be proven to uphold a charge,
  • What it plans to do with Lucia challenges,
  • Appropriate (and inappropriate) methods of notifying a probationer of their separation, and
  • What types of evidence in response to alleged whistleblower reprisal actually rise to the level of “clear and convincing.”

2 – Whistleblowers are a priority. Speaking of whistleblowers, we estimate that somewhere between 700-800 of the 3,600+ petitions for review in the backlog contain allegations of whistleblower reprisal, and the Board has already issued decisions on several of these cases. Both members have spoken publicly about how important it is to protect whistleblowers from unlawful retaliation, so it’s no surprise that these cases are already coming out.

3 – Back pay is already adding up. A lack of quorum for half a decade did no favors to anyone, and the back pay for employees who were wrongfully removed or demoted is going to cost agencies (and taxpayers) a lot of money. Two of the new cases have ordered corrective action going back over a dozen years. Add interest and attorney fees to back pay and the cost is easily over a million dollars (or more) in these cases. In addition, while we anticipate agency actions will be upheld in a significant majority of these cases, there are employees who have been wronged who have been waiting years for a Board decision. We’ll never be able to know the true cost of the lack of quorum – but thankfully we have one now.

Is anyone else as excited as we are that we finally have new cases? We’ll keep you posted in this space, and with updated events on our virtual training and webinar training pages – and in our return to the classroom this summer. Hopkins@FELTG.com

COVID-related Harassment Should NOT Outlast the Pandemic

, ,

By Deborah Hopkins, April 11, 2022

Last fall, in the first filing of its kind, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against a private sector company for COVID-related harassment. According to EEOC’s press release, “the pharmacy discriminated against a pharmacy technician with asthma who asked to wear a face mask at work as an accommodation of his disability immediately following the COVID-19 outbreak to help protect him from the virus. The employee was harassed because he requested this accommodation and was sent home twice when he asked to wear a mask, and then taunted and humiliated for questioning management’s policy prohibiting masks, leading him to quit…”

Mask mandates are being lifted all around the country, and COVID cases continue to drop. However, your agency needs to be aware that the potential for discrimination, harassment, and reprisal related to COVID is far from over. Your agency’s job is to prevent that from happening in the first place, or to take immediate, effective corrective action if it discovers such mistreatment has occurred.

It’s probable that every theory of discrimination has been implicated since this pandemic began more than two years ago. Here are a few examples of areas where there could be potential liability if the agency or its employees do not respond according to the law:

  • Employee requests telework as an accommodation because he is at high risk for severe symptoms of a COVID infection
  • Employee chooses to wear a mask or to continue to socially distance after mask mandates are lifted because she has underlying medical conditions that rise to the level of a disability
  • Employee reveals to supervisor he could not be vaccinated against COVID-19 for medical reasons, and the supervisor refuses to consider a promotion for that employee
  • Employee reveals to coworkers she could not be vaccinated against COVID-19 for religious reasons, and coworkers begin to ostracize the employee
  • Reprisal or harassment against employees who requested exemptions from the vaccine mandate as an accommodation, including verbal comments, disparate treatment, and more
  • Agency refuses to consider telework as an accommodation for employees who have been teleworking throughout the pandemic, and are now ordered to return to the worksite
  • Supervisor doesn’t allow an employee to return to the physical workplace because the employee has a known disability the supervisor believes makes the employee susceptible to more severe COVID, even though the employee is willing and able to work within their medical restrictions
  • Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) employees are harassed or discriminated against over the origin of the virus
  • Harassment in a virtual or telework environment

There’s a lot to consider as we start to discover what the Federal workplace will look like in the near future. Join FELTG for the 60-minute webinar The Changing Nature of Hostile Work Environment Claims on May 19 and learn how handle these new types of harassment to ensure a safe and productive work environment for your employees.

Or, let us know if you’d like us to present a training session to your agency attorneys, LR/ER specialists, EEO professionals, supervisors or employees. We’re happy to help. Hopkins@FELTG.com

MSPB’s FY 2021 Report – the Last of its Kind for a Long Time

,

By Deborah Hopkins, March 28, 2022

Last month, the MSPB issued its annual report from FY 2021, and just like the reports from the several years preceding, there were ZERO decisions on Petitions for Review, because there were ZERO members on the MSPB.

Well, that’s all changed because as of March 4, 2022, we now have a quorum. That’s right, after 1,882 days without a quorum, the Senate confirmed Vice Chair and Acting Chair Raymond Limon, and Member Tristan Leavitt. As a result, the backlog of 3,600-plus cases is starting to move. That means the FY 2022 report will contain something other than zeroes at the Board level for the first time since FY 2017.

In the years without a quorum, the Board was still operating on the lower levels, and I’ve highlighted some statistics in the 2021 report you might also find interesting:

  • 4,649: The number of appeals received (of those, 1,881 were adverse actions; 173 were performance-based actions; and 453 were Individual Right of Action).
  • 3,082: The number of appeals dismissed
  • 1,567: The number of appeals not dismissed
  • 724: The number of appeals settled (a 46% settlement rate)
  • 843: The number of appeals adjudicated on the merits

Of those appeals that were adjudicated on the merits:

  • AJs upheld agency actions 80 percent of the time
  • AJs overturned agency actions, or ordered corrective action, 16 percent of the time
  • AJs mitigated agency actions 2 percent of the time

Allow us to do the important math for you: Out of 4,649 appeals filed, only 157 of those actions were overturned or mitigated, which equals 3.38 percent. So, agency actions stood as taken in 96.62 percent of cases last year.

The agencies that had the top 5 highest number of appeals, unsurprising given the size of these agencies:

  • Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Department of the Army
  • United States Postal Service
  • Department of the Navy
  • Department of Homeland Security

Because of the continued lack of quorum, MSPB was unable to issue any formal reports to the President and Congress in FY 2021. But according to the report, “MSPB published three editions of its [Issues of Merit] newsletter, which included articles on various topics such as pay equity, recruitment and hiring, telework, online training, disability retirement, performance management, and supportive work environments.” MSPB also published five research briefs which are linked in the report.

With all that’s happening, and more about to happen, it’s a perfect time to register for the webinar Getting Back on Board: An MSPB Case Law Update, planned for April 20, where we’ll be covering the first cases coming out of the brand new MSPB. Finally! Hopkins@FELTG.com

Q&A About Performance Demonstration Periods, Otherwise Known as PIPs

, ,

By Deborah J. Hopkins, March 15, 2022

As we eagerly await the first decisions from the newly seated MSPB quorum, we have also just passed the one-year anniversary of the Federal Circuit decision Santos v. NASA, that made us rethink everything we thought we knew about implementing the employee performance demonstration period, what we at FELTG call a DP, or as many of your agencies might call it, the PIP.

Over the past year, we’ve received numerous questions about PIPs. Below are a few questions with our FELTG answers.

Q: A supervisor is noticing a lot of performance issues with an employee. Our agency is in the performance documentation period right now and our performance cycle ends on 8/31. Is the performance rating in September a good time to rate as Unacceptable and announce the PIP, or should it be done before then? 

A: The supervisor should implement a PIP now, and not wait until annual rating time. There’s no requirement that the agency wait until a pre-determined rating time to implement a PIP; as soon as the supervisor can document substantial evidence of the unacceptable performance, then OPM regulations say it’s PIP time.

At any time during the performance appraisal cycle that an employee’s performance is determined to be unacceptable in one or more critical elements, the agency shall notify the employee of the critical element(s) for which performance is unacceptable.

5 CFR § 432.104

Waiting until the end of the appraisal period does nobody any favors, and a Level 1 rating is not required before an agency may implement a PIP. According to Santos, the agency need only document unacceptable performance that caused the supervisor to implement the PIP.

Q: How concrete do performance standards have to be, as well as expectations communicated on a PIP, in order to support any final decision to remove?

A: The agency has to have substantial evidence the employee performed unacceptably before, and during, the PIP, on the critical element in question. The expectations communicated depend on the employee’s job level and type; the higher the grade level, the less objective the standards and expectations need to be. See, e.g., Graham v. Air Force, 46 MSPR 227 (1990).

Q: While Santos sets out the requirement that agencies have substantial evidence of unacceptable performance before implementing a PIP, OPM’s proposed regulations disagree with that assessment. What happens next?

A: Well, a couple of things. First, OPM’s regs were proposed and not final, so we’ll wait to see what the final rule says. Second, the MSPB members will probably have a few things to say about Santos. Until we get their take, we won’t speculate – but we’ll keep you posted as soon as we know anything.

For more on employee performance challenges, join us for the virtual MSPB Law Week March 28-April 1, or check out the upcoming webinar The Roller Coaster Employee: Managing Up-and-Down Performance on May 10, or join us in person in Norfolk for Advanced Employee Relations August 2-4. Hopkins@FELTG.com

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

Three Things You May Not Know About Nondiscriminatory Hiring

, ,

By Deborah Hopkins, February 15, 2022

By now, FELTG readers know that Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility (DEIA) in the Federal workplace is a priority for the Biden Administration. And many agencies are in the process of hiring new employees, keeping in mind that the workforce should represent all of America, including traditionally underserved populations.

President Biden’s recent announcement that his pick for the Supreme Court would be an African American woman has also raised questions about what is and is not permitted in the hiring process within the Federal government – something we’ll be tackling in the March 16 virtual training event Nondiscriminatory Hiring in the Federal Workplace: Advancing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility. As we await this important event, I wanted to share three items to consider if you’re involved in the hiring process in any way.

  1. Sometimes it is legal to hire someone because of their sex.

Occasionally, a person’s sex can legally be a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). While this only applies in very limited circumstances, agencies can set this requirement if there is a legitimate, business-based reason. See, e.g., Dewey R. v. DOJ, EEOC App. No. 0120142308 (May 20, 2016) (sex was a BFOQ for a correctional officer position that required performing strip searches on female inmates).

  1. It is illegal to refuse to hire someone because of their sexual orientation.

While this has been the law in the Federal government since the July 2015 decision Baldwin v. Secretary of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 0120133080, it became law for the rest of the country in the June 2020 Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731.

As I say in many classes, just because a law exists doesn’t mean everyone follows it. In a recent EEOC decision, a complainant was discriminated against based on his sexual orientation when he was not hired for an Assistant Fire Operations Supervisor. While the agency claimed non-discriminatory reasons for the nonselection, EEOC found these reasons were pretextual.

For example, the complainant was ranked as the top candidate among seven after a selection panel recommended individuals to hire. However, one of the supervisors involved in the hiring process decided to expand the field to 12 candidates and changed the weight that references held. That supervisor also did not contact any of the references the complainant provided. As a result, the complainant dropped from the top spot to eighth on the list and was not given a second interview. EEOC found this discrimination was motivated by the complainant’s sexual orientation.  Bart M. v. Interior, EEOC Appeal No. 0120160543 (Jan. 14, 2021).

  1. Sometimes, the complainant doesn’t even need to apply for the job in order to state a claim of discrimination in the hiring process.

While you might think that applying for a job is a prerequisite to claiming discriminatory nonselection, there are always exceptions. A complainant need not establish that he applied for a job as an element of a prima facie case if he can show that he was actively discouraged by management from applying for the job in the first place, and that discouragement was tied to or motivated by the complainant’s protected EEO category or EEO activity. See O’Connor v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Appeal No. 0120112072 (2011).

We’ve got plenty more, which we’ll be sharing with you in this space and in our upcoming training sessions. We hope to see you there. Hopkins@FELTG.com.

Demystifying the Individual Right of Action

, ,

By Deborah Hopkins, February 15, 2022

A lot of FELTG training involves how agencies should handle disciplinary actions known as Otherwise Appealable Actions, or OAAs. OAAs are suspensions of 15 days or more, demotions, and removals. OAAs get their name because they are agency actions that by statute the employee may appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or the Board). You may think OAAs comprise most of the MSPB’s caseload. In reality, only about half of the Board’s cases deal with OAAs.

Generally, if an employee files an appeal to the MSPB over a 10-day suspension, reprimand, or low performance rating, the Board does not have jurisdiction and would dismiss the appeal because these actions, while unpleasant to the employee, are not OAAs. But there’s an exception in which a Federal employee (or former employee) can file an appeal to the MSPB over an action that would otherwise not be within the Board’s jurisdiction. It’s the Individual Right of Action (IRA).

The employee is entitled to an IRA hearing if the employee claims a personnel action (reprimand, short suspension, low performance rating, significant changes to job duties, to name just a few) was motivated by the fact that the employee had:

  • Exercised any appeal right that includes a claim of whistleblower reprisal;
  • Cooperated with an agency’s inspector general or OSC investigators;
  • Refused to follow an order that would require a violation of law, rule, or regulation; or
  • Assisted another employee in the exercise of that employee’s rights.

5 USC 2302(b)(8)-(9).

IRAs aren’t rare. In 2020, 11 percent of the Board’s caseload dealt with IRAs.

The Federal Circuit has been quite busy lately (perhaps because the MSPB has been without a quorum for 1,866 days) handling appeals over the outcomes of Administrative Judge decisions on Board IRAs.

Here are a few recent and notable takeaways:

Smolinski v. MSPB, No. 21-1751 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 19, 2022)

The appellant, a visiting provider at an Army hospital, alleged several instances of reprisal for protected activity. While the court rejected most of the claims, it referenced the abuse of authority standard in whistleblower reprisal complaints: “Although 5 U.S.C. § 2302 does not define the term ‘abuse of authority,’ the court found it appropriate to apply the definitions found in related whistleblower protection statutes … and determined that the alleged conduct … would qualify.”

In addition, the court said that in determining jurisdiction over an IRA appeal, the MSPB is not limited to the four corners of the appellant’s original OSC complaint, and that it may consider other relevant agency evidence that supports the appellant’s allegations.

Gessel v. MSPB, No. 21-1815 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 19, 2022) (NP)

This case involved an Air Force employee’s probationary removal. While probationers don’t have full MSPB appeal rights, they still may file an IRA appeal at the MSPB over the removal if they claim it was motivated by reprisal for protected activity. This employee was fired as a probationer because he lost a key to a government building, and the agency had to pay a large amount of money to have the building rekeyed. The employee claimed his removal was not for the loss of the key but rather because he was a whistleblower who made a protected disclosure. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s dismissal of the IRA and found the disclosures were not protected but were the result of typical workplace conflicts. Reports that his coworker made him “uncomfortable,” was “confrontational and attempt[ed] to supervise or discipline him,” and “often watch[ed] foolish and juvenile rap videos and other material,” did not meet the standard set out in the Whistleblower Protection Act.

Marana v. MSPB, No. 21-1463 (Fed. Cir. Jan 20, 2022) (NP)

The appellant, a nurse at an Army hospital, was removed for conduct unbecoming a Federal employee after he inappropriately disclosed a patient’s personal and health-related information to unauthorized individuals. Several of his claims were dismissed because more than two years had passed between his disclosures and the adverse personnel action for which he requested relief. There is a wealth of case law on the knowledge-timing aspect of whistleblower cases: Costello v. MSPB, 182 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“A two-year gap between the disclosures and the allegedly retaliatory action is too long an interval to justify an inference of cause and effect between the two . . . .”); Salinas v. Army, 94 MSPR 54, 59 (2003) (the disclosure and the allegedly retaliatory act two years later were “too remote in time” for a reasonable person to conclude that the disclosure was a contributing factor to the action taken).

These can be confusing and complicated subjects, and not every personnel action gives the employee the right to file an IRA. For more on OAAs, IRAs, whistleblowing, and related topics, join us virtually for MSPB Law Week, March 28-April 1. Hopkins@FELTG.com

3 Things to Know About the Federal Vaccine Requirement’s Injunction

,

By Deborah Hopkins, February 7, 2022

On January 21, a Federal district judge in Texas issued an injunction on the vaccine requirement for Federal employees, established last September by Executive Order 14043. The Biden Administration has appealed the injunction and has requested a stay while the appeal makes its way through the system. While we await the outcome, there are a few nuances of which your agency should be aware.

1. Your agency should still collect information about employee and future employee vaccination status.

Though the vaccine requirement is on hold, the information on vaccination status is important to agencies as they determine safety protocols for the physical workplace. Agencies are not prohibited from using information on vaccination status to set guidelines for masking, distancing, testing, travel, and quarantine requirements.

2. Your agency does not need to rescind discipline that has already been issued and completed for failure to comply with the vaccine requirement.

While most agencies have not yet implemented discipline for employees who were not vaccinated by the November deadline, some have. The Safer Federal Workforce Taskforce guidance is clear: During the pendency of the appeal on the injunction, the discipline should remain as issued. That said, the discipline should not be relied upon as an aggravating factor in any new disciplinary actions.

3. If your agency predicated an offer of employment on a vaccine requirement, it should amend the offer and remove the vaccine requirement.

However, because this injunction is not the final disposition on the issues, the Task Force suggests the following language be included in the amended offer:

“To ensure compliance with an applicable preliminary nationwide injunction, which may be supplemented, modified, or vacated, depending on the course of ongoing litigation, the Federal Government will take no action to implement or enforce the COVID-19 vaccination requirement pursuant to Executive Order 14043 on Requiring Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination for Federal Employees. Federal agencies may request information regarding the vaccination status of selected applicants for the purposes of implementing other workplace safety protocols, such as protocols related to masking, physical distancing, testing, travel, and quarantine.”

There’s much more to discuss on this topic, including information on exemption requests, what agencies should do if they are exempt from the injunction, and whether agencies are permitted to establish independent vaccine requirements for their workforce. Join FELTG next Thursday, February 17, at 1 pm ET for the 60-minute virtual event Vaccine Mandate on Hold: What Now for Accommodation, Discipline, and Hiring? Hopkins@FELTG.com

Takeaways from OPM’s Proposed Regs on Accountability and Discrimination

,

By Deborah Hopkins, January 18, 2022

Well, FELTG Nation, the changes keep coming. Two weeks ago, OPM issued proposed new rules on 5 CFR Parts 315, 432 and 752, as a result of President Biden’s Executive Order 14003, and also proposed regulations for 5 CFR part 724, the Elijah E. Cummings Federal Employee Anti-Discrimination Act of 2020.

These are proposed rules and cannot be finalized until OPM considers public comments. You can comment until the first week of February. While you ponder whether you’d like to submit comments for OPM’s consideration, we’ve pulled a few notable pieces from each proposed rule, and have some thoughts of our own.

5 CFR Parts 315, 432 and 752

Performance

If you read the proposed rule, you’ll notice that OPM has a disagreement with the Federal Circuit about the Santos v. NASA case from March 2021. The Federal Circuit ruled that agencies must justify unacceptable performance before placing an employee on a PIP. OPM disagrees that the statute issues this requirement and relies on its own interpretation:

[A]n agency may not take a performance-based adverse action against an employee whom the agency determined was performing unacceptably unless the agency first provides the employee with notice and an opportunity to improve, and the employee continues to perform unacceptably. The determination to be reviewed on appeal to the Board and its reviewing courts is the final determination of unacceptable performance following the PIP, not any interim determination leading to the PIP.

It will be interesting to see what the Federal Circuit thinks about this.

Another interesting item on performance indicates OPM thinks an agency may need (or at least want) to prove they engaged in performance counseling with an employee prior to the initiation of a PIP:

Agencies should also remain mindful that third parties (for example, arbitrators and judges) place a strong emphasis on a supervisor’s effort to assist the employee in improving his or her performance. Evidence that the supervisor engaged an employee in discussion, counseling, training, or the like prior to the opportunity period may assist the agency in developing a stronger case before a third party that the employee was given a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance before a performance-based action is taken. [bold mine]

This has never been a legal requirement. What’s unclear to us at FELTG is if OPM is setting this as a requirement, suggesting it is a good idea, or perhaps supposing this will somehow meet the Santos requirement in a different way.

Misconduct

President Trump’s 2018 Executive Order 13839 included guidance on penalty determination for agencies, and OPM’s regs which became effective in November 2020, adopted much of that language. In the newly proposed regulations, language about penalty determination and comparator employees will be removed completely. These principles are still in MSPB caselaw but will not be in the updated regulations. OPM seems to want to leave these decisions up to individual agencies.

General Observations

  • The term “business day” will no longer exist in OPM regulations, as that was derived directly from Executive Order 13839. As a result, the timeline for decisions on proposed disciplinary actions is not a hard deadline. It is being left up to agencies. OPM still encourages agencies to act promptly.
  • Clean record settlements are back. The regulation prohibiting agencies from removing discipline from an employee’s OPF is being removed. OPM’s justification for this is, among other things, “the prohibition of clean record agreements hampers agencies’ ability to resolve informal and formal complaints at an early stage and with minimal costs to the agency.”
  • Agencies will no longer be required to provide mandatory notification to supervisors at 30 months and one month before the end of an employee’s probationary period. OPM pointed out that agencies are still encouraged “to notify supervisors that an employee’s probationary period is ending, [but] OPM believes the frequency and timing of notifications should be left up to the discretion of each agency.”
  • The regs are FINALLY being updated to include the dual status technicians in the National Guard who gained coverage under the 2018 NDAA.
  • Agencies no longer need to notify OPM if they extend an employee’s notice period beyond 30 days.

5 CFR part 724

The Elijah E. Cummings Federal Employee Anti-Discrimination Act of 2020 went into effect Jan. 1, 2021. The new law modifies the No FEAR Act and places requirements on agencies related to findings of discrimination.

According to OPM, the proposed regulations will require an agency to:

  • Provide notice, in an accessible format, of a finding of intentionally committed discriminatory (including retaliatory) acts on the public internet website (linked directly from the home page) of the agency after all appeals have been exhausted.
  • Submit the annual report in an accessible, electronic format prescribed by the Director of OPM.
  • Submit a disciplinary action report, in an accessible, electronic format, to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
  • Establish, or leverage, a system to track each complaint of discrimination; and
  • Provide a notation of any adverse action taken under section 7512 of title 5, United States Code, for a covered act of discrimination (including retaliation) in the personnel record of an agency employee found to have intentionally committed discriminatory (including retaliatory) acts, after all appeals are exhausted.
  • Update No FEAR Act training to comply with the new provisions of the Statute.
  • Train new employees within 90 calendar days of appointment, including employees who transfer from one Federal agency to another.
  • Train all existing employees on a training cycle of no longer than every two years.

We can help you with those training requirements. You know where to find us! 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