Another Congressional Tiny Little Foray into the World of Civil Service Law

,

By William Wiley, February 20, 2018

Each year, the National Defense Authorization Act turns out to be a great piece of legislation into which members of Congress can stick things that have nothing to do with the nation’s defense. The Act for fiscal year 2018, HR 2810-335, is no exception. Dig through many pages in the bill of this and that, and you’ll find the following tidbit:

Sec. 1097(b)(5), INFORMATION ON APPEAL RIGHTS. —

(A) IN GENERAL. —Any notice provided to an employee under section 7503(b)(1), section 7513(b)(1), or section 7543(b)(1) of title 5, United States Code, shall include detailed information with respect to—

i. The right of the employee to appeal an action brought under the applicable section;

ii. The forums in which the employee may file an appeal described in clause (i); and

iii. Any limitations on the rights of the employee that would apply because of the forum in which the employee decides to file an appeal.

(B) DEVELOPMENT OF INFORMATION. —The information described in subparagraph (A) shall be developed by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, in consultation with the Special Counsel, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Context

To appreciate the relevance of this language, we need to know a couple of things:

Adverse Actions: To suspend, demote, or fire a Title V career federal employee, most agencies take what is known as an adverse action, 5 USC Chapter 75. Agencies must issue two separate documents to make an adverse action happen:

  • A proposal Notice that tells the employee why the action is being proposed, and explains the employee’s rights to defend himself, and
  • A Decision memo that takes into consideration the employee’s defense of himself, and notifies the employee of the outcome of the proposal; g., removal, demotion, suspension, or nothing.

Rights Notification:  Since the beginning of time (OK, maybe it was just since 1979), agencies have been required to include in the Decision memo an explanation of the employee’s rights to challenge the agency’s final action through appeal to MSPB. Historically, agencies have also included an explanation of the employee’s alternative rights to file a grievance under a collective bargaining agreement, a discrimination complaint to EEOC, and sometimes an explanation of the US Office of Special Counsel’s jurisdiction to consider claims of whistleblower reprisal.

About five years ago, MSPB decided that the various rights notifications used by different agencies were not uniformly informing to the employee of all the alternatives available to challenge the adverse action, and the implication of selecting one venue over the other. Therefore, by regulation, the Board mandated that agencies must provide a complete description of the various redress alternatives when issuing a decision in an adverse action appealable to MSPB.

However, for reasons unimaginable to the common mind, the Board did not say exactly what language should be used for the rights notification. That left agencies floundering around guessing what should be said in the rights notification to make the Board happy, and the Board reviewing those rights notifications judging some to be adequate and others not.

Here at good old FELTG, we did the best we could to sort all that out. As soon as the regulatory requirement was mandated, we offered draft language that we guessed the Board would accept. A few months later, we had to tweak that language because of an MSPB decision that pointed out the need for greater specificity of notice. Still, even with the second tweaked draft, we weren’t really sure that the MSPB was being appeased or whether it just had not gotten around to finding fault with what we had recommended. Lesser agencies who do not abide by our FELTG suggestions continued down whatever language rabbit hole they thought to be the better path. Quite frankly, we were all running backwards in the dark because of the lack of distinct and specific instruction.

Comes Now the NDFAA for Fiscal Year 2018:  Amazingly, somebody on Capitol Hill saw how foolish this was, and interjected the language you see above into a passing piece of legislation. No offense intended here, but I am awe-struck that someone up there appreciates the difficulty that this lack of guidance causes. Talk about civil service minutiae. Hats off to whoever saw the problem, and thanks for trying to fix a dilemma that should never have occurred.

Unfortunately, the law misses the point of a rights notification. An employee needs to know her rights to challenge an adverse action after the decision has been made to implement the action; e.g., in the Decision letter. The statutory language above requires that the rights notification be included in the Notice proposal. So now what will happen is that the poor employee likely will be confused and start filing appeals before the agency has made a decision as to whether an adverse action will be implemented at all, and if so, what it will be. If that happens, poor overworked MSPB will have to dismiss all those pre-decisional appeals as premature, and the confused employee will have to get good advice to know to refile once the final decision is issued. Groan.

MSPB, why in tarnation didn’t you just tell us what language to use as a rights notification in the first place? Why put it on us simpletons to guess at what you wanted? OPM, when you saw that MSPB wasn’t going to be helpful, why didn’t you have one of your senior people Uber over to M Street NW and talk with someone at the Board about a coordinated issuance of acceptable language? This is staff stuff. This is what staffs do. No big decision-making; that’s left to the politicals. Just normal people saying to normal people, “Hey, we got a procedural problem here. Can you help?” Geez, see what happens when you leave it up to Congress to fix something we should have fixed ourselves? Good try; just missed.

We’re all in this together: MSPB, OPM, EEOC, OSC, the other civil service movers and shakers; maybe even old FELTG, if you’ll allow us a guest pass. The goal is to make government work smoothly and fairly. Congress is going to continue to micromanage us until we learn to manage ourselves. This is not the best way to make government work well. Wiley@FELTG.com

Bug Bites: How Do You Handle an Employee Who Brings Bed Bugs in to the Office?

, ,

By Deborah Hopkins, February 14, 2018

A few days ago, I got an interesting hypothetical question from a long-time FELTG reader, and it was such a good one I thought I’d share it with the rest of you. It’s something I hope is always hypothetical and you never have to deal with in real life. Here we go:

Hi FELTG,

I have attended many of your trainings and your instructors have even been out to my agency to train our lawyers and HR personnel.  I have a hypothetical strange case that I was hoping I could bounce off of you all.

Hypothetically, what should an agency do if it has an employee who is bringing bed bugs into the office? Let’s say the agency has already paid for an exterminator once and the exterminator confirmed that this employee’s office was the source of the infestation.  Let’s also say that the employee’s supervisor has talked with the employee to notify her of the problem (if she wasn’t already aware), and she told management that she would address it.

Now let’s say it’s a few weeks later and there are still bed bugs in the office, and it’s so bad that other employees are getting bit. Because coworkers getting bit by the bedbugs, this is hypothetically creating a massive morale issue in the office. What do you think a hypothetical agency should do in a case like this? Here are some thoughts:

  1. Do I give him an order and then discipline him if he doesn’t follow that order?  Is my order “Do not bring bed bugs into the office”?
  2. Do I indefinitely suspend him until such time as he can prove to the agency that he has addressed the problem at his home?
  3. Do I put him out on enforced leave (I don’t like this option)?
  4. Do I allow him to come to work but separate him from everyone else and force him to bring a change of clothes each day that is in a sealed plastic bag?

I’m assuming that someone must have dealt with something like this before.  Do you have any thoughts?

And here’s the FELTG response:

Dear well-thought-out FELTG reader,

What an interesting hypothetical you’ve presented to us. While this person’s behavior clearly involves employee safety and health, it’s also misconduct – and as you know from being a long-time FELTG reader, charging misconduct is fast, easy, and free. You give her an order, thereby making it her problem to resolve, and “Do not bring bed bugs into the office” is a clear, understandable order. Of course, you’ll document this conversation with her.

If you’re not going to fire her when she violates the order (if you determine the misconduct does not rise to the level of removable misconduct under Douglas) you can even do an indefinite suspension until she demonstrates medically she is free of the little critters, see, e.g., Pittman v. MSPB, 832 F.2d 598 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Moe v. Navy, 2013 MSPB 43 (June 14, 2013), which don’t deal with bedbugs but say that an agency can indefinitely suspend an employee, pending inquiry, for psychological or other medical reasons if the agency has a sufficient objective basis for doing so. We never have to tolerate unsafe or, for lack of a better term, unsanitary, conduct in the workplace.

No need to do enforced leave, and (not legal advice, just personal advice) I wouldn’t do Option 4 because the plastic bags might not work, and it would just drag out the inevitable.

Thanks for the note, and good luck if a case like this ever presents itself in real life! 😉

Hopkins@FELTG.com

How to Write a Robust Critical Element

, ,

By William Wiley, February 14, 2018

Few supervisory responsibilities are less clear than how to write a good critical element. Goodness knows it’s not for lack of “guidance.” The performance management world is full of important-sounding words and concepts: maximizing S.M.A.R.T. performance standards, GEPRA cascading goals, quality/quantity/timeliness. And then we have mandatory generic standards written by somebody in HQ who doesn’t know diddly about how things are done out here in the field and don’t really say anything worth saying: “empowering,” “transparency,” “learning-based approach,” “bottom-up buy-in,” “cascading goals,” and this season’s favorite useless phrase: “promoting engagement.” Aauugghh.

If you’re like most experienced Federal supervisors, you’ve probably come to the conclusion that this performance management stuff is just a bunch of B.S. dreamed up by some overly-intelligent Human Resources specialists to keep us worker bees busy. It all may sound good and worthwhile, but as a practical matter, it does you little good when it comes to actually managing employee productivity and getting the job of government done.

Well, we agree. To a point.

First, let’s start with the law. Whether we think that performance appraisal is worth a bucket of warm spit or not, we have to do it. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 mandated it throughout government, and there is little likelihood that Congress will be changing that aspect of the law any time soon.

Next, we come to the minimum you have to do. As a Federal supervisor, you are required to create at least one critical element (CE) in each performance plan you write. For each CE, you must create a performance standard by which you will rate the employee either Unacceptable or higher using one or more levels of rating above that. Drafting a usable CE and its standard is your primary responsibility because nothing else works in a performance management program without that.

And there’s the rub. I don’t know about you, but for every good CE I have seen in my career, I’ve seen a hundred that were miserably bad. Even with all those pages and pages of guidance put out by OPM and your own agency, nailing an effective CE is just about the hardest thing a supervisor has to draft each year.

Well, you’re in luck. Here at FELTG, we have devised a method for writing a power-packed, customized CE for every employee in government. It combines a fair amount of judgment with some hard lines in the sand for accountability. We can hardly wait to tell you about the FELTG-Method©, but first, you need to appreciate our bias:

Performance appraisal doesn’t work.

What? How can that be? Would Congress and OPM require federal agencies to spend millions of hours doing something that has not been proven to be an effective management tool? Yes, they would. As the lawyers say when something speaks for itself, res ips. The sad reality is that while annual performance ratings for employees sound like a good idea and are embedded in many organizations, you’ll be hard-pressed to find any academic research that finds that they are worth the effort. In fact, what you’ll find instead are studies that say that annual performance appraisals act to de-incentivize good performance. So, when we say we have a great way to write a CE, we’re not saying that because it’s a magic bullet to fix a non-functional performance appraisal program.

Instead, what we’ve done is come up with a terrific way to write a CE for the purpose for which they indeed are useful: to draw a line in the sand for employees either to keep their jobs or get fired. If you want something that helps you differentiate between Exceptional, Superior, Exceeds Expectations, Outstanding, or any of the other slices of acceptable performance, you’ll need to look elsewhere. However, if you want a CE that you can use easily to make it clear to the employee what she has to do to keep her job, then this approach is for you.

Now that you have the background, look for the other two articles in this edition of the FELTG Newsletter and learn the secrets of a super-duper CE. Once you’ve mastered the FELTG-Method© trick, promise us you’ll use your new powers only for good and not evil. Wiley@FELTG.com

EEO Contact: No Mind Reading Required

, ,

By Meghan Droste, February 14, 2018

The federal sector process is made up of many steps with many deadlines.  Complainants must do several things, most of which involve filling out forms, before their cases go to hearing before an EEOC administrative judge.  Even one missed step can mean the end of a complaint.  Perhaps the most important of these steps is making initial contact with the EEO office (or someone reasonably connected with it—a topic for another article) within 45 days of the last discriminatory event.  It seems so simple from an agency’s perspective—if the agency took the alleged discriminatory action more than 45 days before the complainant contacts an EEO counselor, it’s all over for the complainant.  Of course, it’s not always that simple.

As the Commission reminds us most recently in Shayne K. v. Department of Defense, EEOC Appeal No. 0120180070 (January 4, 2018), the 45-day clock actually starts from when the complainant knew, or should have known, that the discriminatory act occurred.  In examining these issues, the Commission applies a “reasonable suspicion” standard.  This means that the 45-day time period does not start until the complainant reasonably suspects that he or she is the victim of discrimination.

This still seems pretty easy, right?  In a non-selection case, for example, a complainant must contact a counselor within 45 days of learning that the agency selected another candidate.  Well, not necessarily.  The Shayne K. case is a good example of how that clock does not always start ticking right after the complainant becomes aware of the personnel action.  The agency notified the complainant on February 16, 2017 that it had selected someone else for the position at issue.  The agency did not, however, tell the complainant who it had selected.  The complainant learned on June 20, 2017—through the results of a FOIA request he filed in February—that the selectee was outside of the complainant’s protected class.  The complainant then contacted an EEO counselor on June 26, 2017.

The Commission held that the complainant’s EEO contact—130 days after he learned of the non-selection—was timely; because the complainant did not know the protected classes of the selectee until June, he could not have reasonably suspected that he was the victim of discrimination until then.  The very act of the non-selection was not enough to trigger the deadline—there had to be some reason for the complainant to suspect that the agency did not select him for discriminatory reasons. Ultimately, the EEO process requires reasonable suspicion, not mind reading.  Droste@FELTG.com

More on the Dangers of Charging Intent: Threat and Willful Misconduct

, ,

By Deborah Hopkins, February 14, 2018

Last month we discussed charges that carry an element of intent. If you didn’t get a chance to read it, check it out here: https://feltg-stage-ada.stage3.estlandhosting.com/the-dangers-of-charging-intent/. As a reminder, if a charge includes an element of intent, the intent must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Usually we don’t have a confession showing intent, so we look at circumstantial evidence and consider the totality of the circumstances. Naekel v. Transportation, 782 F.2d 975, 978 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Boo v. DHS, 122 MSPR 100 (2014).

This month we will be looking at two specific charges: threat and willful misconduct.

Threat

The lead case on threat is Metz v. Department of the Treasury, 780 F.2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 1986). If you haven’t read it, you really should. As a quick summary, though, Mr. Metz was an instructor at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and he was not happy with his performance evaluation: he received an annual rating of “excellent” but believed he deserved an “outstanding,” and he said he would harm himself and others. Two of Metz’s coworkers also reported that they heard Metz say he was going to kill his supervisors.

Threats of harm against a government supervisor are taken seriously, though sometimes it is difficult for an agency to determine if a threat actually has been made, or if a person is just talking out of frustration or anger. In reviewing removals based on threat charges, MSPB must use “the connotation which a reasonable person would give to the words.” Meehan v. USPS, 718 F.2d 1069, 1075 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In other words, look carefully at the circumstances.

Metz sets out five factors to help determine whether a threat has been made:

  1. The listener’s reaction;
  2. The listener’s apprehension of harm;
  3. The speaker’s intent;
  4. Any conditional nature of the statements; and
  5. The attendant circumstances.

Intent evidence shaky? Consider another charge for the misconduct. Discipline has been upheld for a charge of “Making statements that caused anxiety and disruption in the workplace,” McCarty v. Navy, 95 FMSR 5122 (1995), and charging “inappropriate conduct,” but bringing intent evidence into the Douglas analysis as justification of a more severe penalty, Brough v. Commerce, 119 MSPR 118 (2013).

Willful Misconduct

So, what the heck is this charge “willful misconduct”? It’s a deliberate and intentional (not careless or heedless) disobedience of a lawful order. So if you’ve got intent evidence that the disobedience was intentional, go forth and charge. However, as always when dealing with intent, proceed with caution.

The line between careless and willful should not be ignored.  We often see employee injuries and workers’ compensation claims in cases of willful misconduct, and when an employee’s willful misconduct leads to his injury, his actions take him out of the performance of duty. I.A. and USPS, No. 15-1913 (ECAB 2016). For example, a USPS employee drove a GOV without a seatbelt and entered an intersection with the vehicle’s passenger-side door open. These behaviors were not willful misconduct but rather were lapses of judgment, because they did not exhibit wanton or reckless disregard of probable injurious consequences. L.R. and USPS, No. 08-84 (ECAB 2008). Because there was no evidence of premeditation…or intentional wrongdoing, or that the employee knew his behavior was likely to result in serious injury, his claim was not precluded under workers’ comp. Id.

As we said last month, and will say a thousand more times, the bottom line in labeled charges that contain an intent element: be sure you have a preponderance of the evidence on intent, because if you don’t you will lose your whole case, and Mx Misconduct will be coming back to work for you. Hopkins@FELTG.com

Surprise: We Start with the Position Description!

, ,

By William Wiley, February 14, 2018

When we think about writing a performance plan, we don’t usually start with the employee’s position description. We read goals and objectives passed down to us from higher up, often from people with important ideas and responsibilities, but have little to do with front line performance and accountability. For example, the US Office of Special Counsel just got a law passed that says that every federal supervisor has to have a CE that measures how much they support the employee’s right to blow the whistle. The well-intended folks working on protecting employees from civil rights discrimination sometimes require a “diversity” CE. By the time we deal with special interest groups and generic CEs that say nothing, there’s precious little room left for CEs that are customized to the employee and the work the employee needs to perform.

That’s why we need to get to the heart of the employee’s job as quickly and efficiently as possible. And the employee’s job starts with the PD. So, get that document onto your computer, preferably in Word or editable PDF. Be sure its accurate or this won’t work. If it’s not accurate, stop right now and make it accurate. Your agency’s classification office will be glad you did.

Step 1. Using the Position Description, list all significant tasks required to perform in the position.

This is easy if you know how to copy and paste. The Introductory section of a PD lists all the tasks that you expect the employee to perform; e.g., “Files all incoming correspondence,” “Plans and manages the regional XYZ Program,” “Serves as the agency’s contact point with community partners,” etc. Go through the first section and perhaps the Knowledge section of the PD sentence by sentence. If the sentence says nothing of importance and does not describe a task, skip it. If it does describe a task, but not an important one, skip that as well.

One of the good-news-secrets of a performance-based removal is that you will not have to defend your characterization of a task as important or not. If you say that it’s important, it is. A judge will not go behind that decision and ask you to prove it or to otherwise justify your judgment.

When you come to a task that you deem to be important, using your word processing program, select the sentence with your little mouse, copy the sentence out of the PD document, then paste it into a separate document. Continue through the PD, copying and pasting, putting each new task on a separate line in the new document. When you finish, you will have a list of 10-50 important tasks you expect the employee to perform in that position. Using a sample PD from one of our favorite FELTG clients, your list should look something like this:

  1. Provides access, as appropriate, to offshore energy and marine mineral resources.
  2. Oversees the environmentally sound development of these resources.
  3. Coordinates the review and analysis of offshore energy and marine mineral lease proposals.
  4. Manages the Financial Accountability and Risk Management Program.
  5. Administers lease adjudication and management functions.
  6. Conducts environmental reviews, analyses, and consultations for proposed activities.
  7. Etc.

Option:  Legally, you can use the entire list to develop a single CE. However, in your judgment, maybe some of the tasks group well with certain other tasks, and for whatever reasons, you would like to have more than one CE. If so, copy and paste the tasks from the overall list derived from the PD into whatever groupings seem to make the most sense to you. For example, maybe some of the tasks are more administrative and others are more technical. Therefore, you might choose to have two CEs, one for each grouping. Here, we’ll deal with just a single CE, for simplicity.

Step 2. Dig out your agency’s handy-dandy appraisal form, the one you’re required to use to develop the employee’s annual Performance Plan.

Find a place on the form where you are allowed to create a CE. Give your CE a nice general name; something like “Technical Expectations” should work. Depending on your agency, you may be required to develop from two to five performance standards, one for each rating level in your agency’s performance policy. Again, for the sake of simplicity, let’s say that you are required to have three rating levels: Outstanding, Successful, and Unacceptable.

Go to the Successful level and begin to define the CE as follows: “Performs all of the following tasks within established time limits, consistent with accepted practices in the field, and free of any errors in the final product.” Below this introductory characterization of your expectation, cut and paste the task list you developed from the PD.

Critical Element No. X: Technical Expectations

Successful – Performs all of the following tasks within established time limits, consistent with accepted practices in the field, and free of any errors in the final product.

  1. Provides access, as appropriate, to offshore energy and marine mineral resources.
  2. Oversees the environmentally sound development of these resources.
  3. Coordinates the review and analysis of offshore energy and marine mineral lease proposals.
  4. Manages the Financial Accountability and-Risk Management (FARM) Program.
  5. Administers lease adjudication and management functions.
  6. Conducts environmental reviews, analyses, and consultations for proposed activities.

“But, Bill, there’s a lot of subjectivity here. Aren’t employees entitled to know our specific expectations?” Yes, Virginia, they are. And we provide that subjectivity through the day-to-day feedback we provide employees as their supervisors. If we decide we must place the employee on a PIP, we will give this enlightening feedback through formal feedback sessions set up and documented weekly during the PIP. The language here is good enough to get the performance year rolling and can be built upon as necessary as the year develops.

Step 3. Define the other two levels of performance.

Outstanding – Performs all tasks as identified for the Fully Successful level, and in addition exhibits an overall degree of professionalism above that expected for the Fully Successful level.

Unacceptable – Performs any task in a manner inconsistent with the expectation set for the Fully Successful level, failing to perform one or more tasks at the Successful level.

There you have it. Room to rate above fully successful if you think that’s necessary. A bright line in the sand if you PIP the employee. Remember, you don’t have to prove that your standard is particularly reasonable, only that it was attainable and that you resolved any ambiguity in the standard by PIP counseling. Given that the level of proof necessary to uphold a performance removal is only substantial (more than a scintilla, but less than the weight of the evidence), you will not have a problem on appeal justifying a removal using this task standard. Now, get out there and hold somebody accountable. Wiley@FELTG.com

Tips from the Other Side, Part 2

, ,

By Meghan Droste, February 14, 2018

Confession time—I’m a rule lover.  Now, I don’t just mean that I follow the rules; I mean that I really like when there are rules, I enjoy reading the rules, and I derive some not insignificant amount of joy from following the rules.  I think this explains my love of baking (the recipe is just a list of rules that need to be followed) and etiquette books (I have a collection).  Every Sunday morning, I start my day by reading The Ethicist column in The New York Times Magazine while eating a bagel.  Judge if you want, but we all have our own quirks.

One of the reasons I like having rules is that they set out parameters and expectations.  When I’m baking—whether it’s a new recipe or one that I have made dozens of times—I know what ingredients I need and in what order to mix them, and I know what the outcome will be.  Similarly, I know what I need to do as a litigator because there are often specific rules that set out the order of things to do and the deadlines for doing them.  I follow the rules because I like to, but also because I know that if I don’t follow them, there can be significant consequences.

I share all of this with you because it seems some agencies think that the rules can be bent just because it’s hard to follow them.  One of the rules that is so basic and yet so often ignored is the deadline to complete an investigation of a formal complaint.  As you know, agencies have 180 days from the date a complainant files a formal complaint to complete an investigation and issue a Report of Investigation.  This is in fact a deadline, not a suggestion.  When I find that an agency has missed the 180-day deadline, I always file a motion for sanctions.

When reviewing a motion for sanctions, the Commission is unlikely to be moved by any excuses the agency might offer.  Understaffed?  You still have to follow the rules.  See Lomax v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC App. No. 0720070039 (October 2, 2007) (“The agency’s internal situation cannot be used as a defense to its failure to comply with the Commission’s regulations.”).  In a budget crunch?  You still have to follow the rules.  See Royal v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Req. No. 0520080052 (September 25, 2009) (“[W]hen considering whether an agency has the fiscal resources to comply with the requirements of the EEO process, it is appropriate to look to the agency as a whole . . . the agency cannot expect to evade the consequences of its funding decisions.”).  Using a contractor?  You still have to follow the rules.  See Adkins v. FDIC, EEOC App. No. 0720080052 (January 13, 2012) (“Even when agencies contract with other organizations to conduct investigations, the agencies remain responsible for the content and timeliness of the investigations.”).

The Commission has sanctioned agencies many, many times for the failure to meet this deadline.  The severity of the sanctions can vary, but default judgment is common.  Why risk the ultimate sanction—a finding that the agency discriminated against a complainant—when the rules are so clear?  Make sure you hold the people in your agency accountable for timely completing investigations of EEO complaints.  Trust me, it’s fun to follow the rules.

If you have specific questions or topics you would like to see addressed in a future Tips from the Other Side column, email them to me. Droste@FELTG.com

 

But, What if I Want to Go Performance-Rating Crazy?

, ,

By William Wiley, February 14, 2018

Let’s say that you’ve drunk the Kool-Aid and think that there just must be more than this to holding employees accountable for performance. You want not three levels of ratings, but five. Maybe some of your important tasks are more important than others. What if you’re willing to be more forgiving of an employee, rather than requiring that he perform all the tasks in his position before you will fire him? Can you still use the FELTG Method©?

Sure, you can. You just have to do a little creative tweaking (not “creative twerking”; Deb always corrects me on that one).

More Than Three Levels of Rating.

Let’s say that your agency requires five levels of rating:  Outstanding, Exceeds Successful, Successful, Minimally Successful, and Unacceptable. In addition to the three levels defined above, you can define the two additional levels like this:

First, change the definition above for Outstanding to the definition for Exceeds Successful. Then add the new definition for Outstanding to be:

Outstanding – Performs at the Exceeds Successful level, and in addition develops creative solutions for difficult challenges that arise during the appraisal period.

Then modify the Unacceptable level so that it comports with the Minimally Successful level like this:

Minimally Successful – Performs any single task in a manner inconsistent with the expectation set for the Fully Successful level.

Unacceptable – Performs two or more tasks in a manner inconsistent with the expectations set for the Fully Successful level.

A Desire to Distinguish Among Important Tasks

Let’s say that after you review your list of important tasks, you conclude that although all of them are important, some are REALLY important; more important than the others. If you want to address this, it’s easy. Just sort the tasks into two groups, like this:

Major Tasks

  1. Provides access, as appropriate, to offshore energy and marine mineral resources.
  2. Oversees the environmentally sound development of these resources.
  3. Coordinates the review and analysis of offshore energy and marine mineral lease proposals.

Standard Tasks

  1. Manages the Financial Accountability and-Risk Management Program.
  2. Administers lease adjudication and management functions.
  3. Conducts environmental reviews, analyses, and consultations for proposed activities.

Once that’s done, you can make all sorts of decisions as to what you will accept as satisfactory performance.  Perhaps you want the Successful level to be, “Performs all of the following Major Tasks within established time limits, consistent with accepted practices in the field, and free of any errors in the final product. Performs the following Standard Tasks within established time limits, consistent with accepted practices in the field, and free of any errors in the final product, with no more than two exceptions during the year.” Maybe you decide that you want the Unacceptable – to be, “Performs any Major Task or three Standard Tasks in a manner inconsistent with the expectation set for the Fully Successful level.” You can mix and match Major and Standard Tasks all day long until you get just the right combination of task failures to define your expectations.

Remember our bias here at FELTG. We don’t see a lot of reason to get all wrapped up in distinguishing among the levels of performance above Unacceptable. Yes, there’s a lot of judgment left to the supervisor in the above FELTG-Method©, but there is going to be a lot of judgment any time you rate an employee’s performance (if you doubt that, watch the judging of the figure skating event at the Olympics). So, cut to the chase, focus on the demarcation between Unacceptable and whatever you call the performance level above that, and you’ll be an Accountability Sheriff, protecting the federal workforce from shoddy performers and defending our way of life here in The Greatest Country in the World. Go get ’em. Wiley@FELTG.com

“Turn Out the Lights, the Party’s Over”

,

By William Wiley, February 6, 2018

That old party-ending song by the Spaniels seems appropriate this week. In case you haven’t heard the death knell tolling, here’s the shot heard ’round the civil service last week. From the State of the Union address:

“Last year, the Congress passed, and I signed, the landmark VA Accountability Act.  Since its passage, my administration has already removed more than 1,500 VA employees who failed to give our veterans the care they deserve. … So tonight, I call on the Congress to empower every Cabinet Secretary with the authority to remove Federal employees who undermine the public trust or fail the American people.”

Media outlets on both sides of the political spectrum foresee this initiative, if it comes to pass, as making it easier to fire people from government as the President claims has happened at DVA this past year. Of course, some talking heads think this is great, and some think this is terrible. Here at FELTG, we take a step back and try to understand just what it means before we jump to judgment.

First, though, a prologue. If an initiative gets into a State of the Union address, you can bet your next paycheck that there is someone very important and powerful in the administration behind the idea and willing to make it happen. This is not some stray remark that will be forgotten after the next tweet storm. This idea has legs, it beat a lot of other ideas out to make it to the speech, and somebody is going to be pushing hard to make it law.

With that said, if the DVA procedures are implemented for the rest of government, let’s take a look at what will change. Read carefully because some of what I’ve seen in the media is not exactly accurate or is misleading. If you get it here from the employment law pros, you get it right.  All numbers refer to calendar days:

Removal Procedure Most of Government DVA New Law
Employee right to a PIP for poor performance Yes No
Proof necessary to support removal Preponderance Substantial
Days for employee response to proposed removal 7 10 (I think)
Days between proposal & removal 30 Usually 21
Days to file an appeal to MSPB 30 7
MSPB stay authority (to order agency to stop) Yes No
Days for AJ to rule 120 (flexible) 63 (firm)
AJ authority to reduce penalty Yes No
Days to appeal an AJ decision to Board 30 9
Days to appeal of Board decision to court 35 9

Grouping the changes allows us to consider their value in the real world (not to be confused with the World of Capitol Hill):

Shortened Time Frames – Reducing the response and decision periods while the employee is on salary makes sense. Let’s get this thing done and get the employee off the payroll. However, we have to admit that a nine-day reduction – with only five to seven of those days being in a pay status – isn’t the greatest salary savings we can imagine; it’s a mere drop in the bucket considering the agency’s overall payroll.

In comparison, shortening the appellate time frames, when the employee is no longer on the payroll, doesn’t seem to create much benefit for the agency, other than one big one that no one’s talking about. Shorten the time frames for an appeal, and we’ve reduced the employee’s opportunity to find a lawyer-representative, and for that representative to put together some sort of defense of the employee. Is it really fair to the employee to allow the agency unlimited time to build a case for removal, then restrict the employee’s time to prepare a defense for no good reason other than disadvantaging the employee? We’ll leave it up to the appellants’ bar to argue that one further.

Reduced Burden of Proof – A lot has been made of this aspect in the press. On paper, lowering the agency’s burden from “more likely than not” (preponderance) to only substantial evidence looks like a big deal. Substantial evidence is “more than a mere scintilla of evidence, but less than the weight of the evidence.” Jones v. HHS, 834 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016). That should be a major change when we consider that a scintilla is no more than a particle, iota, jot, whit, atom, speck, bit, trace, ounce, shred, crumb, fragment, grain, drop, spot, modicum, hint, touch, suggestion, whisper, or suspicion.

Unfortunately, reality doesn’t give us a lot of hope with this change. Since 1979, the burden of proof an agency must satisfy when firing someone for misconduct has been at the preponderance level. However, in 2015 the good folks at MSPB’s Office of Policy and Evaluation surveyed a bunch of federal managers and found out that 97% (97 freaking percent!) of front line supervisors think the burden is much higher than that. In fact, 90% thought we need just as much proof to fire someone from government as we need to send that same person to the electric chair. Congress could lower the evidence burden even further – to a jot, iota, or whisper – and it would do no good if the profession of civil service law doesn’t do a better job of explaining things to decision-makers.

No More Penalty Mitigation – Of the three areas of change, this one stands to be the greatest benefit to agency managers who are trying to hold employees accountable (and the greatest worry to our friends on the union side). Today, when an agency builds a removal case, half the effort goes into defending the penalty against mitigation; analysis and proof of the famous Douglas Factors. Here at FELTG, when we draft a proposed removal for a supervisor, the charge is usually no more than a page, and the Douglas Factor Worksheet is often three or four pages. Each worksheet page requires file evidence to prove each factual statement in the Douglas Factors. Little is more painful in our business than losing a removal – even though misconduct was proven – because the Board concluded that our penalty was too severe.

Under the DVA’s new procedures, prove the misconduct that is charged, and we’re done. No need to muster evidence to defend against mitigation on appeal. Woo hoo! But think how this could work out. The 20+ year employee with no prior discipline and outstanding performance ratings comes to work 15 minutes tardy one day. If the agency fires him and proves the tardy charge, under DVA’s new law, it appears that we’re done. The Board and the courts have no authority to lower the penalty. If they uphold the charge, they uphold the removal, even though most of us would consider the misconduct to be trivial. Is this really what we want for our federal employees? Is this what we would call an efficient civil service?

Lots of speculation in this situation, folks. And I defer to anyone who has a better handle than do I on DVA’s new law and the direction we’re going with this whole thing. Until we start getting some case law, and until Congress decides whether it will follow the lead of the President, your guess as to how things will look this time next year is just as good as anyone else’s. Wiley@FELTG.com

What a New MSPB Board Member Nominee Should Know

,

By William Wiley, January 30, 2018

Finally, after all those political donations and fund raisers, your name pops up as a candidate for a political appointment in the current administration. When you get The Call from White House personnel, your little heart starts to flutter. Will it be the ambassadorship to Ireland? The Under Secretary of State assigned to Europe, Japan, and (interestingly) Honolulu? Or, maybe you’re going to be asked if you’d like to be on the short list for the next vacancy at the Supreme Court. You can hardly wait to find out what they’re considering you for. Your mom has the hometown newspaper holding a space on Page One for the big news.

And then the shoe drops. The President is thinking you’d be of great service as a member of the MSPB. There goes the front-page article. Having no idea what those initials stand for, you quickly Google for more information while you’re telling the caller how honored you are and how you’ve always dreamed of serving the President in his still-new administration. Trying to find out what you might be getting yourself into, you hastily type into the browser’s search field www.mspb.gov. And suddenly you come to believe that you are going to be appointed to a mental hospital located just south of Bordeaux, France.

Fortunately, you soon see your error. The correct site is www.mspb.gov. Whew. Learning French was going to be hard, especially those medical terms.

OK, so you’re being nominated to be a Board member. And after a bit of reading, you find out that this is what a Board member’s life is like:

  1. The Board’s judges do the heavy lifting by conducting a hearing, weighing the evidence, then issuing an “Initial Decision” resolving the appeal of some poor fired civil servant or some other matter within MSPB’s jurisdiction.
  2. When an appeal of the judge’s decision is filed with the Board members, the case is worked by the career staff at HQ, then forwarded to the three Board members for their consideration of a draft decision.
    • If a member agrees with the career staff’s recommendation, he signs his name as adopting.
    • If a member disagrees with the career staff’s recommendation, he drafts a memo to his two colleagues about why he is disagreeing and arguing for a different outcome and a rewritten decision.
    • The other two members then review the appeal file and can either a) concur with the staff’s recommendation, b) concur with the other member’s proposed rewrite, or c) come up with their own proposal for rewrite.
  3. The case then circulates among the three members until at least two of them agree as to how the decision should be written.
    • If there is agreement that the staff’s recommendation is correct, the members sign a vote sheet indicating their agreement, and within a day or two the recommended decision is issued as the Board’s final opinion and order.
    • If there is agreement that the staff’s recommendation is incorrect, the case is returned to the staff for a rewrite.
    • When the rewritten decision is forwarded to the three members, it’s subject to the same rotation for voting and argument as before, although it’s unlikely much argument will happen as the members have already spoken as to the outcome they will adopt.
  4. If all three members agree, the final decision is issued after the original or rewritten opinion and order is adopted by all three members.
    • However, if one of the members disagrees with the other two, that member is given the opportunity to write a dissenting opinion.
    • Then that Dissent is circulated to the other two members to give them an opportunity to respond to the Dissent in the Majority Opinion.
    • Then the dissenting member is given an opportunity to respond to the changes made to the Majority Opinion by modifying the Dissent.
    • And thus, the case goes ’round and ’round until all three members have said all they want to say, and then the final opinion and order is issued.

While you’re on hold with the White House, waiting to talk directly to the President and accept the honor of a nomination to be a Board member, you think about this work that you’ll be doing. You moved paper before, thought about things, and made hard legal decisions. You can do this. When, you retrieve the Board’s annual report, you realize that about five appeals enter the Board every workday. That means that on your end, you’ll have to vote a final decision out on five cases a day to stay even with the incoming workload. OK, that’s a lot of adjudicating to do. But you’re a can-do sort of person, and by really leaning in, eating lunch at your desk, and forgoing long vacations, you can make this happen.

And then you read the FELTG newsletter. There you find out that because the Board has lacked a quorum for over a year, your caseload is not five decisions a day to adjudicate, but 800 pending appeals PLUS five new ones that come in every day.

The automated announcement on the phone says that you’re now being taken off hold:

President Trump: “Hello, this is the President. I’m delighted that you’ve agreed to take a position in my administration!”

You:  CLICK.

Lordy, we hope that somebody out there will accept an appointment to be a Board member given the current situation. Perhaps someone with no family, no friends, and a fondness for working indefinitely beyond the point of mental and physical exhaustion. Our country will be forever grateful.

However, if you do get The Call, we couldn’t blame you one bit if you took a pass. Life’s short. It’s so much more fun casually reading the FELTG Newsletter and going early to happy hours than reviewing all those old boring legal briefs that will be shoved at you.

But if you do take The Call, don’t say we didn’t warn you. Wiley@FELTG.com