Source: https://www.mspblawblog.com/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 12:06:34+00:00

Document:
Our law firm represents federal employees at the Merit Systems Protection Board (MPSB). Through our MSPB law practice over the past 20 years, we have found that federal employees don't always have a clear understanding of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) process and procedures. The MSPB process only typically becomes an issue when a federal employee finds themselves in need of appealing an action. The MSPB is an independent federal agency which functions as an administrative court system for federal employees which reviews federal employment and retirement actions. This article discusses a brief overview of the MSPB appeals process for federal employees.
We defend and represent federal employees in proposed disciplinary actions. When a federal employee is facing a proposed disciplinary action before their agency it is important for them to speak with an attorney knowledgeable in federal employment law for legal advice and representation in the appeal. This summary discusses some brief thoughts for federal employees as they respond to proposed disciplinary actions.
We are often asked the question of whether or not it makes sense for a federal employee to hire an attorney for their Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) appeal. This article discusses the reasons why it is very important for federal employees to have an MPSB lawyer represent them in their MSPB appeal and to hire an attorney with experience in this area.
What is an AWOL charge?
Absence Without Leave (AWOL) cases at the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) are known to involve a very specific form of misconduct. An AWOL charge essentially alleges that a federal employee was absent from work without pay and permission. The MSPB, for the most part, has found a connection or nexus between absent federal employees and a disruption of the federal workplace to justify discipline. However, at the same time, federal agencies commonly seem to make mistakes in this type of disciplinary action. For the most part, they seem to forget the issue of potential disability or family medical matters that arise. This type of situation is different than when a federal employee is on approved leave without pay (LWOP).
An AWOL charge is one of the more common forms of charges for disciplinary actions for federal employees. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) notes that it is one of the most common forms of disciplinary action in their article on the subject. It is important to understand the nature of this type of charge when an employee is defending against this type of charge at the MSPB or during proposed discipline. I have included some samples of AWOL charges to give a sense of how these types of charges can be presented.
An AWOL charge is proven by demonstrating that the employee committed the misconduct alleged. In order to prove a charge of AWOL charge at the MSPB an agency needs to be able to do so by a preponderance of the evidence or by 51% of the evidence provided. The federal agency will need to establish that the employee was absent, and that his or her absence was not authorized, or that his or her request for leave was properly denied. Wesley v. U.S. Postal Service, 94 M.S.P.R. 277 (2003).
Military Discrimination: Under military anti-discrimination laws and case law, an employee who is ordered to active military duty should not have been charged AWOL. Jeffrey v. Department of the Navy, 25 MSPR 697 (1985).
The number of potential defenses to an AWOL charge are varied and require the assistance of a attorney knowledgeable in federal employment law to determine the best strategy. It is often the case that a federal agency tends to forget the fact that an employee or an employee's family are undergoing medical issues in issuing AWOL charges. It is far better for the federal agency involved to work with the federal employee during this difficult period than attempting to impose an adverse action.
In sum, when facing an AWOL disciplinary charge it is very important to retain legal counsel familiar with the MSPB. Our law firm represents federal employees before the MSPB and can be contacted at www.berrylegal.com or by telephone at (703) 668-0070. Our Facebook page is located here.
We are often asked how the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) evaluates MSPB appeals brought by federal employees. This article discusses the way in which administrative judges at the MSPB review and consider charges sustained against federal employees by their agencies.
An appeal brought be a federal employee (e.g. an appeal of a removal action by a federal agency), will be evaluated by an administrative judge based on the evidentiary standard that is appropriate. For cases involving misconduct charges, the standard is "preponderance of the evidence" and for performance cases, it is a lower standard, "substantial evidence." In an MSPB appeal, a federal agency, much like in a criminal case, has the burden of proof to prove the charges alleged. 5 U.S.C. § 7701(c). As a result, the federal agency must prove the charge and establish a connection, or "nexus" between the charge and the efficiency of the service. The "efficiency of the service" is a term which simply means for the good of government operations.
The preponderance of the evidence standard has been defined as the degree of relevant evidence that a reasonable person, considering the record as a whole, would accept as sufficient to find that a contested fact is more likely to be true than untrue. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(q). In performance cases, the substantial evidence standard has been defined differently. Substantial evidence has been defined as the degree of relevant evidence that a reasonable person, considering the record as a whole, might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even though other reasonable persons might disagree. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(p). Under this standard, the agency is not required to present evidence that is more persuasive than the evidence submitted by the appellant. Shuman v. Dep't of Treas., 23 M.S.P.R. 620, 624 (1984).
Example: A federal employee is accused of conduct unbecoming because of an allegation that they engaged in a fight at work with another employee. The employee is removed for the alleged fight at work and appeals to the MSPB. The federal agency will have to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence (51% of the evidence at the hearing) that the employee actually engaged in a fight in the workplace.
Example 2: a federal employees is accused of poor performance and placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). The agency then removes the federal employee for failing the PIP. The federal employee appeals. In this type of case, the agency must show that the evidence shows that the federal employee could be seen as having engaged in poor performance. This standard of proof is easier for federal agencies to show.
In sum, when facing an MSPB appeal to retain legal counsel familiar with the MSPB. Our law firm represents federal employees before the MSPB and can be contacted at www.berrylegal.com or by telephone at (703) 668-0070. Our Facebook page is located here.
What is a Conduct Unbecoming Charge?
Conduct Unbecoming cases at the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) are known to involve the most generalized form of misconduct. In other words, the charge can cover a number of different types of offenses. It is the most common charge used when no others specifically apply. It is important to understand the nature of this type of charge when an employee is defending against this type of charge at the MSPB or during proposed discipline. I have included some samples of conduct unbecoming charges to give a sense of how broad these types of charges can be.
1. On November 14, 2017, you engaged in conduct unbecoming when you began to argue with co-workers about an assignment that was overdue. You then approached your supervisor, Jim Jones, and told him “I am done here. You can take this assignment and shove it.” Your disrespectful attitude and profanity in the workplace is unacceptable and you.
2. On July 14, 2018, you engaged in conduct unbecoming when you informed others in the office that you were the recipient of the Purple Heart award for military service, when in fact you never served in the military. Your misconduct reflected poorly on the agency.
3. On October 5, 2017 and October 8, 2017, you engaged in conduct unbecoming when you claimed that you worked your full schedule during those two days. After an investigation, it was discovered that you did not work the two days in question, had not been in the office and falsely claimed time for hours not actually worked.
4. On November 5, 2017, you engaged in conduct unbecoming when you shoplifted a television from a local electronics store. You were subsequently caught for the theft, charged and convicted of criminal theft.
A conduct unbecoming charge is proven by demonstrating that the employee committed the general misconduct alleged. In order to prove a charge of conduct unbecoming at the MSPB an agency needs to be able to do so by a preponderance of the evidence. The agency will need to establish that the employee (1) committed the misconduct as alleged and (2) that the conduct was improper or that it detracted from the federal employee’s character or reputation. Crouse v. Dept’ of Treas., 75 MSPR 57 (1997).
There are a number of different types of methods of defense for general conduct unbecoming charges. The first is to challenge the actual facts alleged. If the facts can be disputed, the charge itself can potentially be defeated. Another potential avenue for challenging a conduct unbecoming charge is to argue that the charge was too vague and thus did not provide a legitimate opportunity to respond. Mason v. Dep't of Navy, 70 MSPR 584 (1996). Other defenses may involve the fact that other employees have engaged in similar conduct but not been charged with discipline. Other potential arguments, including issues where the same conduct has been charged multiple times may be challenged through the merger doctrine (the concept that the same conduct cannot be charged multiple times in the same manner). The number of potential defenses to a conduct unbecoming charge are varied and require the assistance of a attorney knowledgeable in federal employment law to determine the best strategy.
In sum, when facing a conduct unbecoming charge it is very important to retain legal counsel familiar with the MSPB. Our law firm represents federal employees before the MSPB and can be contacted at www.berrylegal.com or by telephone at (703) 668-0070. Our Facebook page is located here.
The first step in the MSPB appeals process is for a federal employee to file a MSPB appeal. For most actions that the MSPB hears (those involving serious discipline for federal employees), the deadline is typically 30 days from the effective date of the adverse action to file the appeal. The MSPB appeals process is transitioning to electronic filing so it is much more efficient to file the appeal electronically. It is very important to timely file the appeal and to even file it early given that an untimely appeal will likely be dismissed.
Usually, within 1-2 weeks of filing the MSPB Appeal, a judge will be assigned and issue an Acknowledgment Order which basically sets the ground rules and timelines in each case. This order is about 15 pages and provides a lot of information about the processing of the individual MSPB appeal and should be reviewed carefully.
Typically, 20 days after the issuance of the Acknowledgment Order, the MSPB Administrative Judge will require the federal agency involved in the appeal to provide their file on the case to the MSPB and the Appellant. This file will include the documents relevant to the federal agency’s case and also their initial response to the Appellant’s appeal. It is not uncommon for a federal agency’s file to be 50 to 300 pages long, depending on the number of documents associated with the case.
Most administrative judges will schedule a status conference following the receipt of the Agency File. The general substance of these status conferences involve an initial discussion of the issues involved in the appeal and also potential settlement negotiations. A status conference may lead to mediation or other alternative dispute resolution efforts.
Generally, 30 days after the issuance of the Acknowledgment Order, the parties are required to submit initial discovery requests if they choose to engage in discovery. The discovery stage is very important as it is the Appellant’s chance to obtain documents, correspondence, emails, video, audio which the Agency may possess and which could be used during the hearing. One of the most important parts of the discovery process includes the ability to question (under oath) relevant witnesses in an appeal through the deposition process.
At any point in the process, usually during discovery or when settlement talks are ongoing, a case suspension might be proposed by a party. A case suspension basically freezes the litigation before the MSPB on the case to complete certain tasks, such as complete discovery or to engage in settlement talks or mediation. A case suspension can last up to 30 days, and then, if needed, a second one case be requested. Case suspensions are at the discretion of the Administrative Judge.
Prior to the MSPB hearing, the Administrative Judge will order pre-hearing submissions from each party. These generally include the parties' versions of the issues to be heard, the documents to be used as exhibits in the case and proposed witnesses for the case.
Prior to the MSPB hearing, the Administrative Judge will review both parties pre-hearing submissions and rule on witnesses, exhibits and other issues likely to come up at the hearing. A party will want to be prepared to argue for their position during the pre-hearing conference. Typically, the majority of the pre-hearing conference will be used to argue that certain witnesses be required to attend and to provide a basis to the judge for their relevance.
The MSPB Hearing typically takes about 1-2 days depending on the number of witnesses involved. During the hearing process, there will usually be opening statements and the examination and cross-examination of witnesses for both sides. A court reporter will transcribe the testimony given. There may be closing arguments and/or written closing submissions prior to the issuance of the Administrative Judge’s decision in the case. The written decision is typically issued 2-6 weeks after the hearing is held.
Should the MSPB Administrative Judge issue an adverse decision, either party can file an appeal known as a Petition for Review (PFR) usually within 35 days of receipt of the decision.
In sum, when litigating an MSPB appeal, it is very important to retain legal counsel familiar with the MSPB to assist you. Our law firm represents federal employees before the MSPB and can be contacted at www.berrylegal.com or by telephone at (703) 668-0070. Please visit our Facebook page.
In certain circumstances, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) can hear an appellant’s (federal employee) request for a review of a labor arbitrator’s decision. Most arbitration review requests go to the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) at the request of a union. However, some grievants seek review by the MSPB. In some cases, MSPB review is possible where jurisdiction is found.
In general, the MSPB has review over a grievant’s request to review a decision under 5 U.S.C. § 7121 (d) when the MSPB has jurisdiction over the “subject matter” of the grievance, the appellant has alleged a claim of discrimination under 5 U.S.C. § 2302 (b)(1), and the arbitrator has issued a final award or decision. When it chooses to review a decision, the MSPB often gives greater deference to decisions issued by arbitrators than they do to decisions issued by their own administrative judges.
In general, in order for the MSPB to have jurisdiction to review an arbitration case, the grievant must have alleged discrimination in combination with the other claims and taken the case to arbitration, where appropriate. Where a union elected not to move forward to arbitration, the MSPB found that a grievance's decision was not appealable as a final decision. Knuckles v. Dep't of the Army, 122 MSPR 519 (2015).
The MSPB will reverse or modify a labor arbitrator’s decision only where the arbitrator has made a mistake of law in interpreting civil service laws, rules or regulations. Hidalgo v. Dep’t of Justice, 93 MSPR 645 (2003). An arbitrator's findings of fact are entitled to deference unless the arbitrator erred in his legal analysis. Cambridge v. Dep’t of Justice, 111 MSPR 152 (2009), If an arbitrator has not made specific findings on a particular issue, the MSPB will not defer to the arbitrator's decision to deny an appellant's review request related to that issue. Hollingsworth v. Dep’t of Commerce, 115 MSPR 636 (2011).
1. The MSPB reversed an arbitrator’s decision that an appellant was removed for cause. The MSPB determined that the arbitrator failed to address the appellant’s claim of affirmative defense that she had been subject to retaliation by the agency. Marshall v. Dep’t of Veteran’s Affairs, 111 MSPB 5 (2008).
2. The MSPB reversed a labor arbitrator’s ruling which found that an appellant's grievances were not arbitrable and could not be heard. The arbitrator found that the union failed to pursue the grievances as required by their collective bargaining agreement because it failed to timely schedule the appellant's requested oral or written presentations to management officials in support of her grievances. The MSPB determined that the arbitrator improperly construed the CBA, as the MSPB could not find language within the collective bargaining agreement requiring that the appellant make a presentation at the required step of the grievance procedure. Morales v. SSA, 107 MSPR 360 (2007).
3. The MSPB reversed a labor arbitrator's decision finding that an individual that had previously filed an EEO complaint could not appeal her removal matter through arbitration, finding that the arbitrator was wrong as a matter of law. Galloway v. SSA, 2009 MSPB 46 (2009).
4. The MSPB reversed a labor arbitrator's decision regarding a removal based on falsification, finding that the charge had not been proven and that evidence of EEO retaliation was present. Fitzgerald v. DHS, 2008 MSPB 17 (2008).
In sum, when litigating an appeal of an arbitrator’s decision, it is very important to retain legal counsel familiar with the MSPB to determine the best possible appeals options. Our law firm represents federal employees before the MSPB and can be contacted at www.berrylegal.com or by telephone at (703) 668-0070. Our Facebook page is located at Berry & Berry PLLC Facebook Page.
What is Lack of Candor?
Lack of candor cases at the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) are unique. Candor, according to Dictionary.com, is defined as "the state or quality of being frank, open, and sincere in speech or expression." Lack of candor charges seem to be more common today than they have been in the past. In fact, more federal agencies use this charge against federal employees today than ever before. While many individuals would think that lack of candor and falsification charges are the same type of charge, they are not. A lack of candor charge is distinct from a standard falsification charge. A lack of candor charge is more broad than a falsification charge. Falsification cases involve direct evidence of deception. Lack of candor is more a term of art, which can involve more general conduct. Usually, lack of candor cases involve charges alleging that a federal employee did not disclose information that the agency thinks should have been disclosed by the employee.
To prove a charge at the MSPB an agency needs to be able to do so by a preponderance of the evidence. For lack of candor cases at the MSPB there is no need for an agency to prove an intent to deceive, but rather that under the circumstances, the information should reasonably been disclosed for completeness. Fargnoli v. Dep’t of Comm., 2016 MSPB 19 (2016). Lack of candor, however, necessarily involves an element of deception. Parkinson v. Dep't of Justice, 815 F.3d 757, 766 (Fed. Cir. 2016). There needs to be some element of proof that the federal employee knowingly omitted or hid facts from an agency.
On July 12, 2017, you were interviewed by investigators about the theft of computers from your office. You testified that you did not take the computers when asked. However, even though you were not asked if you knew who took the computers from your office, you had knowledge of the individual that had taken them and did not disclose that to investigators. You did not disclose this information.
(2) the federal employee (he/she) did so knowingly.
Because the agency failed to establish by preponderant evidence that the appellant knew her statement was false, we found the administrative judge was correct in not sustaining the charge. Our reviewing court recently took a similar approach in Parkinson, in which an employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was charged with lack of candor under the FBI Offense Code based on his alleged “failure to be fully forthright” in his statements to agency investigators. In that context, the court found that the “element of deception” required under Ludlum entailed that the employee must have “knowingly” failed to be forthright (citing Parkinson, 815 F. 3d at 766-67).
Hence, the key in defending lack of candor cases before the MSPB falls on the issue of whether or not the federal employee knowingly failed to be forthright. Because of the ever increasing number of lack of candor charges, federal employees involved in administrative investigations and disciplinary actions involving this type of issue should retain counsel early to attempt to avoid lack of candor charges and/or defend against them at the MSPB.
In sum, when facing a lack of candor charge it is very important to retain legal counsel familiar with the MSPB. Our law firm represents federal employees before the MSPB and can be contacted at www.berrylegal.com or by telephone at (703) 668-0070. Our Facebook page is located at Berry & Berry PLLC Facebook Page.
The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is an appeals forum for federal employees and former federal employees to challenge various types of federal agency actions, such as serious disciplinary actions (adverse actions), retirement appeals, whistleblower matters and other types of cases. The most usual type of appeal for federal employees involves filing an appeal over a serious disciplinary action, such as removal from the federal service. During an appeal a federal employee can choose to be represented by an attorney or not be. In almost all cases, however, the federal agency will be represented in the appeal by an attorney. This article discusses some of the reasons for retaining an attorney familiar with the MSPB process to assist you in an appeal. In other words, the reasons why it is important for a federal employee to retain an MSPB attorney. Here are some reasons why it is important for a federal employee to retain an MSPB lawyer for their appeal.
One of the reasons why it is important to have an MSPB experienced attorney representing a federal employee is that it will very likely make a difference in how the federal agency treats the MSPB appeal at issue. Federal agencies allocate their attorney resources first to cases where an individual has their own attorney. Those cases tend to get the most attention because their are attorneys on both sides of the appeal. In other words, where an appellant has their own attorney, the federal agency involved will focus more on that individual’s appeal merely because they have an attorney. This focus can help to settle MSPB appeals.
One of the most important reasons why it is important to have an MSPB attorney represent a federal employee in the appeals process is the fact that it is a very serious type of appeal, functioning much like a court case. There is a general misperception that the process is designed for an employee to effectively represent themselves. An MSPB appeal functions much like a civil court case where there is discovery, the taking of depositions and the filing of briefs. It is critical that an appellant have counsel to assist them in these difficult and sometimes complex processes. It is often the case where federal employees discovery this fact late and we are contacted after discovery deadlines have passed which can make appeals much more difficult to prevail in and/or settle. It is important to have an MSPB attorney early in the process.
Federal employees who retain attorneys in the MSPB process, in our experience, are more likely to resolve their MSPB appeals. Part of the calculation by federal agencies, in determining whether or not to settle MSPB cases has to do with risk. Federal agency attorneys evaluate the risk of losing an appeal (a risk which increases when an employee has an attorney), but also other types of risks including the risk of adverse information being disclosed through discovery. Individuals without counsel can run across difficulties such as how to format discovery requests or take depositions which can limit the amount of critical information uncovered in an appeal. This can decrease the chances of settling an MSPB appeal. MSPB lawyers are also able to understand and work out the legal terms of a settlement agreement with federal agency counsel to minimize risk and to attempt to ensure compliance with settlement agreements.
One of the most important reasons for having an MSPB attorney assist an appellant in a case is the difficulty for a federal employee in presenting their own case at the MSPB hearing. MSPB hearings typically involve presenting opening and closing statements, presenting and questioning witnesses, cross-examining witnesses and making legal objections to evidence. It is also difficult for a federal employee to question themselves in a case, and their testimony as a result often takes the path of a statement which can have limitations. Having an MSPB lawyer assist them can help lead them through what can often be difficult testimony. We often have federal employees come to us following the filing of an MSPB appeal because they didn't realize how complex the process can be. It is best to secure MSPB representation as soon as possible for federal employees.
In sum, when litigating an MSPB appeal it is very important to retain legal counsel familiar with the MSPB. Our law firm represents federal employees before the MSPB and can be contacted at www.berrylegal.com or by telephone at (703) 668-0070. Our Facebook page is located at Berry & Berry PLLC Facebook Page.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 7701
 § 1201
 § 1201
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 7121
 § 2302
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.