Opinion ID: 819793
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Answers to inquiries are comprehensive and

Text: technically accurate. F. Confidential information and case file materials are maintained in accordance with EBSA and Regional Office Procedures. G. Contacts with governmental agencies and other organizations are in accordance with EBSA guide- lines, applicable laws, regulations, and interagency agreements and are handled in a professional manner. Moltzen v. Dep’t of Labor, No. SF-0432-10-0994-I-1 at 9-10 (M.S.P.B. Aug. 12, 2011) (“Initial Decision”) (emphasis added). By contrast, performance “needs-to-improve” and is “minimally acceptable” when the employee meets the above criteria with “some”—as opposed to only a “few”— exceptions. Id. (emphasis added). Mr. Moltzen’s review process began in April 2009, when he was told in a mid-year review that his work may not meet the performance standards in three of the four critical areas. Suzanne Fischer, Mr. Moltzen’s direct supervisor, gave Mr. Moltzen a 60-day informal improvement period, and provided Mr. Moltzen with specific feedback and steps to improve his performance. When Mr. Moltzen’s performance failed to improve, Ms. Fischer placed him on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). See 5 U.S.C. § 4302 (a PIP provides an em- 4 DAVID MOLTZEN v. LABOR ployee with notice of performance failings and identifies specific goals to meet to retain employment). Mr. Moltzen and Ms. Fischer reviewed the PIP to- gether, and a few days later Ms. Fischer issued a lengthy memorandum discussing Mr. Moltzen’s deficient performance and giving him 90 days to improve. During the 90day PIP period, Ms. Fischer or another supervisor met with Mr. Moltzen weekly to discuss his progress and provide guidance on improving his work. During the PIP, Mr. Moltzen worked primarily on two cases, which are referred to in the Board decision as the “Union” case and the “A” case. Ms. Fischer found that Mr. Moltzen’s work on both of these cases was deficient. For example, Mr. Moltzen’s work product on the “Union” case required multiple revisions, and still failed to include legal analysis, omitted several key issues, and included one issue that EBSA lacks jurisdiction over. On the “A” case, Ms. Fischer had to return Mr. Moltzen’s work product three times for “substantive omissions.” Based on this performance and failure to improve, after an extended 132-day PIP period, Mr. Moltzen was removed from his position. On review, an administrative judge (AJ) upheld Mr. Moltzen’s removal. Although the AJ found that EBSA’s “definition of performance would be impermissibly vague if no further clarification was provided,” he concluded that communications from Ms. Fischer cured any vagueness in the standards. The AJ discussed in detail Mr. Moltzen’s performance on the Union case and the A case, and found that Mr. Moltzen indeed failed to bring his performance in critical element 2, Quality of Investigations, up to a minimally acceptable level. Mr. Moltzen appealed the AJ’s decision to the Board. The Board denied Mr. Moltzen’s petition for review and affirmed the AJ’s decision. This appeal followed. DAVID MOLTZEN v. LABOR 5