Ask The Lawyer

By Debra Roth

Q & A Session: Performance Ratings and Retirement

Bookmark and Share

Q:

Can a federal employee retire having had an unacceptable performance rating at the time of retirement?

A:

Yes, so long as a federal employee meet requirements of whichever retirement mechanism applies to him or her, the employee can retire having an unacceptable performance rating at the time of retirement.

Keep in mind, if you receive an unacceptable rating at the end of your performance improvement plan (PIP) and you subsequently receive a proposed personnel action (i.e. proposed removal or proposed demotion) because of any alleged poor performance, you can resign but the SF-50 memorializing your separation from the federal service will be coded to indicate you separated in lieu of an involuntary action.

This response is written by James P. Garay Heelan, associate attorney of Shaw Bransford & Roth P.C., a federal employment law firm.

Disclaimer: Ask a Lawyer publishes information on this website for informational purposes only. Information on this website is intended – but not promised, guaranteed, or warranted – to reflect correct, complete and current developments. In addition, the contents of the website do not constitute legal advice and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the attorney. Information from this website is not intended to be used as a substitute for specific legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. You should not act, or refrain from acting, based on information on this website without seeking specific legal advice about your particular circumstances. No attorney-client relationship between you and Ask a Lawyer’s author is created by the transmission of information to or from this site.

Q & A Session: Duty Not In Job Description

Bookmark and Share

Q:

Can you advise what should be done if a critical and permanent duty is measured and rated but is not listed in a job description?

A:

The Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) says in its position classification regulations that you should open a conversation with management about amending your position description. If you are unhappy with the results from that conversation, you can have the issue determined by filing a grievance under either the administrative or the negotiated grievance procedure applicable to you and your agency. This may or may not result in a change to the position description.

Alternatively, you may ask for a desk audit, which may change your position description, and it could re-determine your grade level, which might go up or down. Because your agency is measuring and rating you for the critical duty, a desk audit could well result in a change of your position description.

This response is written by James P. Garay Heelan, associate attorney of Shaw Bransford & Roth P.C., a federal employment law firm.

Disclaimer: Ask a Lawyer publishes information on this website for informational purposes only. Information on this website is intended – but not promised, guaranteed, or warranted – to reflect correct, complete and current developments. In addition, the contents of the website do not constitute legal advice and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the attorney. Information from this website is not intended to be used as a substitute for specific legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. You should not act, or refrain from acting, based on information on this website without seeking specific legal advice about your particular circumstances. No attorney-client relationship between you and Ask a Lawyer’s author is created by the transmission of information to or from this site.

Q & A Session: Delay in Classification Audit

Bookmark and Share

Q:  I submitted a classification audit based on accretion of duties.  There was a long delay in interviewing me until I asked the Union President for help on this matter.  Then, I finally was interviewed for the audit five months ago.  The interviewer told me that her boss had said I deserved a grade increase based on my work.  I have heard nothing since.  I am afraid my Agency is retaliating against me for contacting the union about this matter.  Do they have a deadline to respond?  Can I file a Freedom of Information Act request to learn more about what is going on?

A: It sounds as though you have pursued a desk audit performed by your Agency.  Your internal agency processes and deadlines for processing your audit are unclear to me, but you could request the written guidelines from your human resources office.

You may be able to learn more about what is going on behind the scenes with a Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act request.  Agencies are sometimes slow to respond to such requests, but it can be a useful means to learn more.  You could also continue to request union assistance, since it appears that they were able to aid you in speeding the process along before.

Please know that you can always seek a classification appeal with the Office of Personnel Management. You can find the appeal procedures at 5 CFR § 511.601-511.616.  However, be aware that OPM can and does find that that people requesting audits are actually graded too highly, leading to a reduction, rather than an increase, in grade.

This response is written by Michael S. Causey, associate attorney of Shaw Bransford & Roth P.C., a federal employment law firm.

Disclaimer: Ask a Lawyer publishes information on this website for informational purposes only. Information on this website is intended – but not promised, guaranteed, or warranted – to reflect correct, complete and current developments. In addition, the contents of the website do not constitute legal advice and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the attorney. Information from this website is not intended to be used as a substitute for specific legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. You should not act, or refrain from acting, based on information on this website without seeking specific legal advice about your particular circumstances. No attorney-client relationship between you and Ask a Lawyer’s author is created by the transmission of information to or from this site.

Q & A Session: Suspected Favoritism

Bookmark and Share

Q:

I believe that my boss favors another employee over me.  She is graded higher than I am while we do similar work.  She has received step increases which do not appear to be in keeping with normal timetables.  She receives generous time off awards, despite the fact that she does not work 40-hour weeks, and much of the time she actually spends in the office is spent on social media sites and talking with other employees.  When the favored employee became pregnant, she was permitted to telework from home.  Then, after giving birth, she was allowed time to express milk without ever having to take leave to do so or make the time up later.  She was also allowed to babysit her child in the office, although when I complained about that practice, it ended and was replaced with a telework agreement.

I feel like I am treated differently than this favored employee.  What should I do about it?

A:

Concerning your different grades, I would note that perhaps there are more differences in your work or qualifications than you believe.  The other employee might have more experience or education than you do.  If you are concerned about the grading difference, you could request a desk audit from the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”), which could assign you a higher grade.  But exercise caution – OPM could also find that the work you are performing is beneath your grade, and actually reduce your grade.  Concerning your allegation that she has received inappropriate step increases, it would be very difficult, if it is even possible, for an employee to receive an illegal step increase.

Regarding telework, you management is free to provide telework agreements based on the Agency’s needs so it is in conformance with telework policies.  It is possible that if you requested a telework agreement, you would also be granted one.

The issues surrounding the expressing breast milk while on-duty appears to be a very minor issue, and one which could cause you to be viewed as insensitive or petty if you raised it with your employer, since it will not be a permanent condition and likely does not consume a large amount of office time.

This response is written by Michael S. Causey, associate attorney of Shaw Bransford & Roth P.C., a federal employment law firm.

Disclaimer: Ask a Lawyer publishes information on this website for informational purposes only. Information on this website is intended – but not promised, guaranteed, or warranted – to reflect correct, complete and current developments. In addition, the contents of the website do not constitute legal advice and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the attorney. Information from this website is not intended to be used as a substitute for specific legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. You should not act, or refrain from acting, based on information on this website without seeking specific legal advice about your particular circumstances. No attorney-client relationship between you and Ask a Lawyer’s author is created by the transmission of information to or from this site.

Q & A Session: Working Below Pay Grade

Bookmark and Share

Q:

Can I be assigned to report to an employee of the same grade as me? Can my supervisor assign me to work below my pay grade?

A:

To the first question, yes, your supervisor can instruct you to report to another employee of your same grade. There is nothing in OPM regulations prohibiting an agency from requiring an employee to report to another employee of the same grade. There are even rare situations where a lower graded employee is designated as the supervisor of higher graded employees. While not preferred or ordinary, what matters most is the designation of supervisory authority by higher up.

And to the second question, yes, a supervisor can assign an employee to do work typically assigned to employees in lower pay grades when it furthers the government’s needs to do so, but the supervisory cannot lower that employee’s grade or pay without following the procedures set forth in Title 5 of the U.S. Code.

This response is written by James P. Garay Heelan, associate attorney of Shaw Bransford & Roth P.C., a federal employment law firm.

Disclaimer: Ask a Lawyer publishes information on this website for informational purposes only. Information on this website is intended – but not promised, guaranteed, or warranted – to reflect correct, complete and current developments. In addition, the contents of the website do not constitute legal advice and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the attorney. Information from this website is not intended to be used as a substitute for specific legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. You should not act, or refrain from acting, based on information on this website without seeking specific legal advice about your particular circumstances. No attorney-client relationship between you and Ask a Lawyer’s author is created by the transmission of information to or from this site.

Q & A Session: Reasonable Accomodation

Bookmark and Share

Q:

I have a couple questions about reasonable accommodation. Can an agency create a position to accommodate? Also, can an agency accommodate by reassigning an employee to a detail (a position that does not exist)? From the research I have done it states that reassigning an employee must be to a “vacant funded position.”

A:

Your research is accurate. Agencies are given significant flexibility in providing reasonable accommodations to their employees. It is within an agency’s discretion whether to create a position for which to reassign an employee or to place an employee on detail (essentially a temporary reassignment to a new position), if such reassignment would reasonably accommodate the employee’s medical needs. But, an agency is not obligated to exercise that discretion. An agency is only obligated to reassign an employee if there is a vacant, funded position available, and if reassignment to that position will reasonably accommodate the employee’s medication needs.

This response is written by James P. Garay Heelan, associate attorney of Shaw Bransford & Roth P.C., a federal employment law firm.

Disclaimer: Ask a Lawyer publishes information on this website for informational purposes only. Information on this website is intended – but not promised, guaranteed, or warranted – to reflect correct, complete and current developments. In addition, the contents of the website do not constitute legal advice and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the attorney. Information from this website is not intended to be used as a substitute for specific legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. You should not act, or refrain from acting, based on information on this website without seeking specific legal advice about your particular circumstances. No attorney-client relationship between you and Ask a Lawyer’s author is created by the transmission of information to or from this site.

Speaking Publicly

Bookmark and Share

Federal employees who have challenged adverse job actions on First Amendment grounds regularly fail. Why is that, and could a case now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court be a game-changer?

Thirty years ago, the Supreme Court recognized that public employees, like all citizens, enjoy a constitutionally protected interest in freedom of speech. However, according to the court, public employee free speech rights must be balanced against the need of government agencies to exercise “wide latitude in managing their offices, without intrusive oversight by the judiciary in the name of the First Amendment.”

For employees who faced a job action because of something they said, the Merit Systems Protection Board applied Supreme Court First Amendment law to determine whether a public employee’s speech is protected by the First Amendment. That test has always been to balance the interests of the employee, acting as a private citizen, in commenting on matters of public concern, against the interests of the federal government, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees. Thus, the MSPB will determine: 1) whether the speech was made as a private citizen; 2) whether the speech addressed a matter of public concern, and, if so, 3) whether the agency’s interests in promoting the efficiency of the service outweighs the employee’s interest as a citizen.

In sum, speech (in a blog, on your Twitter account, on your Facebook page, in an op-ed), is protected by the First Amendment, and thus cannot be the subject of discipline if you were speaking as a private citizen (not in your official capacity) and on a matter of public concern. When you speak out with the indicia of your official capacity on a matter of public concern, your speech can be regulated by your federal employer, including discipline. The rationale is found in the Supreme Court case, Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006):

“When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline…Restricting speech that owes its existence to a public employee’s professional responsibilities does not infringe any liberties the employee might have enjoyed as a private citizen. It simply reflects the exercise of employer control over what the employer itself has commissioned or created.”

A few weeks ago, the Supreme Court heard arguments on a public employee case that raises questions about whether some speech made in your official capacity is protected. The case was brought be a Central Alabama Community College (“CACC”) employee who became the director of a program for at-risk youth. He discovered that an Alabama state representative was on the program’s payroll, despite never having provided any work or services for the program. When the employee notified the CACC president about his concerns, he was warned by the president and CACC’s attorney that putting an end to the state representative’s “employment” would not be wise for either CACC, or for the employee. The employee ignored this warning and terminated the Alabama state representative when she refused to report to work.

The employee, while still employed, was later subpoenaed for his testimony in two federal criminal trials for mail fraud and fraud involving a program receiving public funds. The employee testified that the state representative had not reported to work, had not submitted time sheets, and had refused to report to work when instructed to do so.

Subsequently, the CACC president of the CACC fired the employee who terminated the state representative. The employee then filed suit in federal district court, claiming that his firing was retaliation for his testimony regarding the state representative. The court of appeals ruled for the public employer, finding that an employee does not enjoy First Amendment protection when the speech was made pursuant to his official duties, i.e., his subpoenaed testimony.

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether a public employer is categorically liberated under the First Amendment to retaliate against an employee for truthful testimony that was compelled by subpoena. The fact that his testimony was presumably truthful has thus far offered him no relief.

Most federal employees who defended against an adverse action alleging a violation of the First Amendment lost because the speech at issue, made as a private citizen, did not involve a public concern. The MSPB has long held that employee speech that lacks a public dimension and is seen as subversive to good order, efficiency or discipline in the workplace, is more likely to be unprotected speech. But with the case now before the Supreme Court, it looks as if some official capacity speech may become protected under the First Amendment. To what extent, will be revealed when the Court rules by June 30th.

 

Debra L. Roth is a partner at the law firm Shaw Bransford & Roth in Washington. She is general counsel to the Senior Executives Association and the Federal Managers Association, host of the “FEDtalk” program on Federal News Radio, and a regular contributor to Federal News Radio’s “Federal Drive” morning show. Email your legal questions to lawyer@federal times.com and view her blog at blogs.federaltimes.com/ federal-law.

Q & A Session: Correcting Substandard Work

Bookmark and Share

Q:

Can it be considered a form of abuse or injury when correcting an employee’s substandard work results in carpal tunnel syndrome pain?

A:

While it seems as if your subordinate employee is indeed creating unusual work conditions for you, a complaint of abuse or injury based on the inferior work product of a subordinate isn’t feasible. However, if your carpal tunnel becomes too debilitating, you may be eligible for reasonable accommodations from the agency which will allow you to work and remain healthy. You also may be eligible for workers’ compensation if your carpal tunnel syndrome is aggravated by your work duties. I can’t advise you on the best way forward professionally with the employee who is producing reams of bad copy, but it might be wise to take advantage of any available feedback, counseling, or performance review process available.

This response is written by Conor D. Dirks, associate attorney of Shaw Bransford & Roth P.C., a federal employment law firm.

Disclaimer: Ask a Lawyer publishes information on this website for informational purposes only. Information on this website is intended – but not promised, guaranteed, or warranted – to reflect correct, complete and current developments. In addition, the contents of the website do not constitute legal advice and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the attorney. Information from this website is not intended to be used as a substitute for specific legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. You should not act, or refrain from acting, based on information on this website without seeking specific legal advice about your particular circumstances. No attorney-client relationship between you and Ask a Lawyer’s author is created by the transmission of information to or from this site.

Q & A Session: What are my options for a discontinued service retirement?

Bookmark and Share

Q:

I am an Air Force reservist and a full-time federal employee.  I am facing a military medical board which I think will determine I am no longer medically able to participate in the reserves.  I am 47 years old.  I have given 28 years of reserve service and 16 years of civil service.  I am not sure what my options are to pursue a discontinued service retirement since I am under age 50.  What are my options for a discontinued service retirement?  Can I request an age wager?

A:

While you may no longer be medically suitable for military service, that does not mean you are also unfit for federal civil service; many conditions which would make an individual unable to serve in the military do not preclude civil service.  I suspect you may not have to retire at all.

If you wish to seek a discontinued service retirement, you must either (a) be age 50 or over, with 20 years of creditable service, or (b) have at least 25 years of service at any age.  Your lengthy reserve career likely had several period of active duty, might add several years of “creditable federal service.”  I am not aware of a waiver to these requirements.  However, that may be a moot point, because you must also be involuntarily separated from federal service to qualify for a discontinued service retirement, and it does not sound as though you are being involuntarily separated from your civil servant position.

If you are medically unable to continue in your current position, you could apply for a disability retirement, request a transfer to another position you could perform as an accommodation, or request an accommodation which allows you to perform your current duties.

This response is written by Michael S. Causey, associate attorney of Shaw Bransford & Roth P.C., a federal employment law firm.

Disclaimer: Ask a Lawyer publishes information on this website for informational purposes only. Information on this website is intended – but not promised, guaranteed, or warranted – to reflect correct, complete and current developments. In addition, the contents of the website do not constitute legal advice and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the attorney. Information from this website is not intended to be used as a substitute for specific legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. You should not act, or refrain from acting, based on information on this website without seeking specific legal advice about your particular circumstances. No attorney-client relationship between you and Ask a Lawyer’s author is created by the transmission of information to or from this site.

Q & A Session: Finance Management & Security Clearances

Bookmark and Share

Q:

Can my finance management affect my security clearance?

A:

One of the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information, Guideline F, is based on financial considerations. A short sale can have a negative impact on your FICO score. Thus, a short sale could be a factor in a security clearance adjudication, but does not necessarily mean you will lose your clearance. It depends on other factors, including a pattern of financial irresponsibility and avoidance of financial responsibilities. You should seek advice from an attorney and your security officer.

This response is written by Maria N. Coleman, associate attorney of Shaw Bransford & Roth P.C., a federal employment law firm.

Disclaimer: Ask a Lawyer publishes information on this website for informational purposes only. Information on this website is intended – but not promised, guaranteed, or warranted – to reflect correct, complete and current developments. In addition, the contents of the website do not constitute legal advice and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the attorney. Information from this website is not intended to be used as a substitute for specific legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. You should not act, or refrain from acting, based on information on this website without seeking specific legal advice about your particular circumstances. No attorney-client relationship between you and Ask a Lawyer’s author is created by the transmission of information to or from this site.