Opinion ID: 4558506
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: By sending Ms. Primeaux a revised Excel

Text: spreadsheet for the COOP Resource Analysis Project that did not contain formulas, despite Ms. Primeaux recommending formulas and providing resources for assistance; 3. By uploading incomplete staff performance narratives on November 13, 2017 and not collabo- rating with Ms. Clancy to incorporate her feedback for them; and 4. By providing an updated performance narrative for Mr. Holland on November 21, 2017 that still omitted Ms. Clancy’s feedback and did not cover the entire performance cycle. J.A. 168. The proposed removal further charged Ms. Harris with failing to demonstrate technical proficiency and expertise on COOP-related matters on four occasions during her attempts to revise the spreadsheet for the COOP Resource Analysis Project and in preparing a low-quality executive summary of the project. J.A. 168–69. Finally, the proposed removal charged Ms. Harris with failing to cooperate with and meaningfully support OSO management initiatives on three occasions: 1. By failing to convey Mr. Holland’s performance deficiencies by refusing to give him the formerly agreed-upon Improvement Required rating for the Achieving Results in Occupation critical Case: 19-1676 Document: 53 Page: 9 Filed: 08/25/2020 HARRIS v. SEC 9 element—instead rating him an Accomplished Practitioner; 2. By not cooperating with Mr. Brown to help ad- dress employee misconduct; and