Federal Legal Corner

Articles

The attorneys of Passman & Kaplan have written the following articles about current legal developments in the law. These articles can also be found in the “Federal Legal Corner” of the publication FEDweek.

Disability Discrimination by State Department

In Adams v. Rice, 531 F.3d 936 (D.C. Cir., 2008), a U.S. Court of Appeals reserved a lower court decision granting summary judgment in favor of the State Department on grounds that the appellant has a "record of" an impairment breast cancer -- that substantially limited her sexual relations, which the D.C. Circuit determined was a major life activity under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The court of appeals remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings.

Court Limits 'Cat's Paw' Doctrine

It is well established that an employer's decision cannot be said to be free of discrimination, even if the decision maker was motivated by a legitimate concern, if the decision maker was relying upon negative information from another employee motivated by unlawful discriminatory or retaliatory animus. This is known as the "cat's paw" doctrine.

Breach of Last Chance Agreement

In Lizzio v. Department of the Army, No. 2007-3224 (Fed. Cir. 7/16/08), the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the Merit Systems Protection Board and held that MSPB erroneously relied on a different ground for breach of the settlement agreement than its AJ.

Untimely Disability Retirement Application

In Mendiola v Office of Personnel Management, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the appellant did not establish that he was mentally incompetent for the purpose of excusing the one-year deadline for filing a disability application after separation. No. 2008-3014, 2008 WL 2510614 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (nonprecedential). The appellant was a machine tool operator at Kelly Air Force Base until he was separated from service on September 11, 1999. In June 2005, the appellant filed a CSRS disability retirement application. Applications for CSRS disability retirement must be filed with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) before separation from service or within one year thereafter. See 5 U.S.C. §8337(b). This requirement is only waived when the former employee was mentally incompetent within one year after separation.

Sleep Impairment a Disability Under Rehabilitation Act

On July 1, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its decision in Desmond v. Mukasey, Case No. 07-5139. Reversing a decision on summary judgment by the district court, the D.C. Circuit held the claim that sleep disruption constitutes a disability under the Rehabilitation Act sufficiently meritorious as to survive summary judgment.

Complainant's Role in EEO Investigation--Part 2

This is the second of a two-part series on the burdens and responsibilities of complainants in EEO investigations.

Discrimination Due to Disability

The U.S. District Court for District of Columbia granted partial summary judgment against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in Bergman v. Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury, Case No. 06-303, decided May 1, 2008, finding the IRS discriminated against plaintiff because of her disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The court began its decision by stating that this case presents a "bizarre situation." The plaintiff was a "highly qualified and experienced specialist in tax law" employed at a GS-14 level, with no substantive work to do, which the IRS did not deny. Because of the lack of substantive work, plaintiff's mild and controllable depression was exacerbated into a case of severe chronic depression. Therefore, the plaintiff sought as a reasonable accommodation a transfer to the IRS Office of Chief Counsel where she had worked at an earlier time "with distinction." The doctor hired by the IRS to examine the plaintiff's medical records "recommend from a medical point of view" that the IRS accommodate her "with a position appropriate to her legal and educational background if there is such a position available in your agency."

Hatch Act

It is the season again when our attention is focused on political campaigns. For federal employees, this can be an exciting time because, in essence, you are selecting your next boss! But, this can also be a time when employees' interests in helping candidates becomes problematic because of the limitations imposed on federal employees' political activities. A mistake here can turn a current employee into a former employee ... involuntarily! There are many limitations on the rights of federal employees to get involved in political activities. These limitations are set forth in the Hatch Act. It is important that you observe these limitations, as failure to do so may result in your termination from federal service.

Recovery of Legal Fees

On June 2, 2008, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U.S. _______, Case No. 06-1717 (Slip. Op.). Overturning the Federal Circuit, the Supreme Court held that the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) permits paralegal fees recovery at market rates, and not just at the actual costs to the attorney.  

Discrimination Due to Age, Union Activities

The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) recently upheld an arbitrator's decision which found discrimination due to protected union activities and age in U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Local 121, 62 FLRA No. 80 (May 14, 2008), and awarded the grievant a retroactive promotion with back pay and attorney fees to the union. The arbitrator noted that the grievant, a union steward, had been denied a promotion for an electrician leader position after having filed numerous grievances and EEO complaints and was given a lower performance rating "to make [the grievant's] candidacy for promotion less viable and to retaliate for his protected challenges to supervisory authority." The arbitrator rejected the agency's asserted reasons for not selecting the grievant and found them to be pretext for unlawful discrimination as he had served as the acting electrician leader in the past without incident

EEOC Finds Disability Discrimination

The EEOC recently held that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS or agency) improperly used its vision standard to disqualify an individual from employment as a detention enforcement officer (DEO) without making any determination as to his ability to perform the job's essential functions with or without a reasonable accommodation. Poquiz v. Homeland Sec. Dep't, EEOC Appeal No. 0720050095 (2008). The complainant has limited vision in his right eye due to a previous injury. After the Bureau of Prison waived its vision standard, the complainant was hired as a correctional officer (CO). Subsequently, the complainant applied for a DEO position with DHS, and he was hired subject to medical and security clearances.

Reasonable Accommodation

In Garg v. Potter, No. 07-2377 (7th Cir. April 4, 2008), a U.S. Court of Appeals held that when an employee alleges that an adverse action was taken in violation of the Rehabilitation Act, but fails to challenge whether the employer provided reasonable accommodation, then the adverse action will not be overturned. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Postal Service.

Establishing a Discrimination Case

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently held that the question of whether a plaintiff in a discrimination suit made out a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 793 (1973), "is almost always irrelevant" when the district court considers an employer's motion for summary judgment or decides a case at trial. See Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, Case No. 06-5362 (March 28, 2008). Typically, under McDonnell Douglas, which sets forth the burden of proof for Title VII cases, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie (at first glance) case by showing that he/she was treated worse than someone not in his/her protected class before the burden shifts to the employer to set forth its reason for the challenged action. The D.C. Circuit, however, called the prima case "a largely unnecessary sideshow" that wastes litigant and judicial resources. 

Removal Upheld Despite Dispute

In Meza v. Department of Homeland Security, (Fed. Cir. No. 2007-3150, April 23, 2008), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the removal of an INS criminal investigator after he allegedly tested positive for cocaine, notwithstanding contrary evidence. Because the Merit Systems Protection Board administrative judge who heard the evidence concluded that the relevant evidence supported the allegation, the court said it could not overturn the decision.

Pay Discrimination Bill Stalls

In July, 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act but the bill has now stalled in the Senate. The bills purpose is to restate the law as it had been interpreted for years before the Supreme Courts decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 127 S.Ct. 2162, 2176 (2007).

Burden of Proof

In DeCaire v. Mukasey, 07-1539 (1st Cir. 2008), the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district courts decision which ruled against a plaintiff by, among other things, making various errors in law, and using the Judges own opinion as to managements reasons for the adverse actions. This case provides an excellent review of the governing burden of proof in discrimination and retaliation cases.

Rushed Resignation Not Coercive

On March 12, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Parrott v. Merit Systems Protection Board, Case No. 2007-3119. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) dismissal of Parrott's appeal for lack of MSPB jurisdiction over his constructive removal claims.

Jurisdiction in Mixed Case

In Ikossi v. Department of Navy, No. 05-5456 (DC Cir. 2/29/08), the federal court of appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed a district court, finding there was jurisdiction over a mixed-case appeal but that pre-termination EEO claims were untimely, and remanded the case for discovery.

Plaintiff Awarded Attorney's Fees

A federal district court in Pennsylvania held that a plaintiff who succeeded on one of multiple claims was a "prevailing party" and entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs even though the relief awarded did not directly remedy the harm. Hare v. Potter, No. 02-CV-7373 (E.D. Pa. February 12, 2008).

Failure to Allow Discovery

In Baird v. Department of Army, No. 2007-3046 (Fed. Cir., Feb. 26, 2008), in a split decision the court remanded back to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or Board) the case of a civilian employee who tested positive for marijuana in a random drug test and had been removed from employment. The court found that proper legal process was not followed, thereby denying the employee the required chance to prove her case. The Board had not allowed the employee the discovery she had requested, and the court found this improper.

Withdrawing Commitment to Retire

In Douglas v. Department of Defense, 2008 MSPB 48 (3/5/08), the The appellant was employed at a Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) facility in Norfolk, Virginia, which was scheduled for closure. The agency informed employees who were eligible for retirement that they could retire with a buyout under the terms of the VSIP. The agency required those who chose the VSIP to sign a VSIP agreement no later than September 15, 2006. The appellant elected to retire and signed the VSIP agreement on August 31, 2006. Then, on September 18, 2006, only three days after the closure of eligibility for the VSIP, the agency announced that it would retain 15 positions.

Whistleblower Jurisdiction Found

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), holding that the Board erred when it dismissed a case alleging reprisal for whistleblowing. Johnston v. MSPB, No. 2007-3167 (Fed. Cir. 3/3/08). The court found that "Because we conclude Johnston's allegations of reprisal for disclosures protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 ("WPA"), 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8), were sufficient to establish board jurisdiction, we reverse and remand."

Disclosing Danger to Public Safety

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a split decision ruled in favor of Teresa Chambers' challenge to her removal as Chief of the U.S. Park Police. The appeals court ruling found that public employees are protected when raising warnings about "a risk to public safety." Chambers v. Dept. of the Interior, No. 2007-3050 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 14, 2008). It was an incomplete victory for Ms. Chambers, however, as the court remanded the case back to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or Board) for a decision.

Attorney Fees for Compliance Proceeding

In Mynard v. Office of Personnel Management, 2008 MSPB 23 (1/31/08), the appellant petitioned for review of the initial decision dismissing his motion for attorney fees relating to the merits phase of his retirement appeal as untimely filed and denying his motion for attorney fees relating to the compliance phase of his appeal on the basis that his petition for enforcement did not result in the issuance of an enforceable judgment.

Improper Reassignment

It is rare when the MSPB finds that an employee's retirement in lieu of accepting a directed reassignment is involuntary.

TSA Found Liable for Discrimination

An EEOC administrative judge from the Baltimore field office recently issued a decision in favor of complainant Linda G. Gaston, who is represented by Debra A. D’Agostino of Passman & Kaplan, P.C., finding the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), liable for sex discrimination.

Time Off to Attend Depositions

TIn Wiley v. Glassman, 2007 WL 4354431, C.A.D.C. No. 06-5402 (December 14, 2007), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), (formerly known as the U.S. Information Agency), did not retaliate against Ms. Wiley when it denied her the use of administrative time (often called "official time") to attend the depositions of witnesses in her EEO lawsuit, and instead forced her to use her own annual leave. Ms. Wiley’s claim of reprisal was dismissed.

Enforcing EEOC Settlement in Court

The Tenth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court’s ruling that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulations (29 C.F.R. § 1614) regarding enforcement of settlement agreements do not permit an employee to file suit to challenge an agency’s compliance with a settlement agreement. Lindstrom v. United States of America, No. 06-8059, 2007 WL 4358287 (10th Cir. Dec. 14, 2007).

Allowable Questions to Job Applicants

On December 11, 2007, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) issued a split decision reversing the removal of a federal air marshal in Evans v. Department of Homeland Security, 2007 M.S.P.B. 297.

Denial of Survivor Annuity

In a split decision, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) upheld the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) denial of a survivor annuity to a surviving spouse, born and raised in the Philippines whose native language is Tagalog, and who had signed a Spouse's Consent to a Survivor Election Form (SF-2801-2), waiving her right to a survivor annuity.

Settlement of Retirement Disputes

The General Principles set forth in the OPM Guidelines for Settlement of Federal Personnel Actions Involving Civil Service Retirement Benefits found at opm.gov state that "The Retirement Trust Fund is not a Litigation Settlement Fund" and that "A Settlement may not provide Retirement Benefits Beyond What a Court or Administrative Body Could Order as Relief in the Litigation."

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

In her Title VII case, the plaintiff, Roxanne K. Symko, alleged that her former employer, the United States Postal Service (USPS), illegally discriminated against her.

Board Remands Disability Retirement Case

In Hartsock-Shaw v. OPM, 2007 MSPB 222, Docket No. PH-844E-06-0658-I-1, September 21, 2007, the Board vacated the administrative judge's (AJ) initial decision to uphold the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) denial of appellant's application for disability retirement benefits.

Attorney Fees Awarded Where Penalty Mitigated

In Miller v. Department of the Army, 2007 MSPB 211 (9/7/07), the Merit Systems Protection Board awarded attorney fees in split decision where a female GS-7 Inspector General Investigative Specialist had been removed for conduct unbecoming a federal employee.

Pre-Enactment USERRA Jurisdiction Affirmed By Federal Circuit

On August 27, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed in part the Merit Systems Protection Board's decision in Hernandez v. Dept. of the Air Force, 102 M.S.P.R. 515 (2006).

Threat of Racial Harassment

In Juergensen v. Department of Commerce, EEOC Appeal No. 0120073331 (October 5, 2007), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found that the agency dismissed a discrimination complaint in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

Adverse Action Not Permitted for Use of Approved Leave

In Ryan v. Department of the Air Force, 2007 M.S.P.R. 240 (October 4, 2007), the MSPB overturned the agency’s removal of the appellant on charges of excessive use of leave.

High Court to Decide Reprisal Issue

You are a federal employee. You file a complaint of age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, (ADEA), against your supervisor, as you have the legal right to do. Your supervisor then retaliates against you for filing the age discrimination complaint. Here is the question: Does the ADEA protect you against retaliation? Put another way, can you file an EEO complaint alleging that the act of retaliation for filing the age complaint was illegal and seek a remedy from the courts? The Answer: It depends where you live.

EEOC Sanctions Agency with Attorney Fees

In Waller v. Department of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 0720030069 (May 25, 2007), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) found that that an administrative judge (AJ) properly exercised her discretion, and acted consistent with commission regulations, the MD-110, and commission precedent in ordering the agency to pay attorney fees as a sanction for the agency’s failure to fully respond to discovery requests.

Modification of Work Schedule as Reasonable Accommodation

In Boozer v. U.S. Postal Service, EEOC Appeal No. 0120060283 (July 24, 2007), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) held that a modified work schedule relating to an employee’s commute may constitute a reasonable accommodation under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.

Agency Liable for Actions of Subordinate Employee

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that a subordinate employee’s pervasive discriminatory influence on an otherwise independent investigation may impute liability on the employer. Poland v. Department of Homeland Sec., 9th Cir., No. 05-35508 (7/20/07).

Application of Rehabilitation to TSA

In Getzlow v. Department of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 0120053286 (June 26, 2007), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) held that the employment qualification standards created pursuant to the Aviation and Transportation Act (ATSA) supersede the requirements under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.

FBI Class Action Complaint

On August 2, 2007, a group of more than 100 police officers for the FBI filed a class action complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for millions of dollars of back and future pay.

Failure to Sign Medical Release

On July 6, 2007, in Vickers v. Powell, Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, No. 06-5016, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit determined that a Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) decision, finding appellant’s refusal to sign a medical release form that did not protect her privacy interest was a firing offense, was arbitrary and capricious.

Definition of “Disability” under the Rehabilitation Act

A recent case decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit highlighted the standard for what constitutes a “disability” under the Rehabilitation Act.

Telecommuting as Reasonable Accommodation

On July 10, 2007, a District of Columbia federal judge ordered the Department of Commerce to pay $303,881 in additional relief for Lisa Bremer, a disabled federal employee, who worked at the Department of Commerce until the Department revoked her right to telecommute three days a week. (Bremer v. Gutierrez, D.D.C. No. 1:03CV01338).

EEOC Awards Substantial Compensatory Damages

The EEOC recently issued two decisions awarding substantial compensatory damages for pain and suffering to the employees.

Privacy of Medical Records

In Koch v. Cox, Securities and Exchange Commission, -- F.3d. --, 2007 WL 1713354 (C.A. D.C. June 15, 2007), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Court of Columbia Circuit held that a plaintiff does not put his mental state in issue merely by acknowledging he suffers from depression for which he is not seeking damages.

MSPB Limits Disclosure of Information

A recent decision by a divided panel of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) could have a chilling effect on the ability of federal employees to use information or documents, obtained through the course of employment, in support of discrimination complaints against agencies.

Court Remands Case for Review of Suggestion Award

In Cooley v. United States, No. 06-284C (May 25, 2007), the U.S. Court of Federal Claims remanded a case that alleged the Social Security Administration (SSA) breached an implied-in-fact contract when it adopted suggestions made through the agency’s Employee Suggestion Program (ESP) without giving an appropriate award.

U.S. District Court Denies Summary Judgment

In Lavorgna v. Potter, W.D. Pa., No. 05-1610 (April 18, 2007), the Chief District Judge denied the government’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss a Civil Rights Act Title VII allegation that a 14-day suspension was unlawfully motivated by the employee’s gender.

Breach of Settlement Agreement

On May 15, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Merit Systems Protection Board’s decision in Lutz v. United States Postal Service, No. 06-3154, finding that the agency materially breached a settlement agreement that was to resolve his Board appeal.

Employment Application Statements

In a two-to-one decision, The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board recently reaffirmed some cardinal rules about what it takes for an agency to prove that an employee intentionally falsified an employment application.

Breach of Settlement Agreement

In Greenhill v. Dept. of Education, D.C. Cir. No. 06-5030 (April 6, 2007), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that a former federal employee’s claim for a breach of a Title VII settlement agreement was a contract claim (in excess of $10,000) and thus was under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims.

Revocation of Accommodation May Be Discriminatory

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently held that revocation of some job accommodations may be discriminatory.

Court Finds No Adverse Employment Action or Reprisal

The Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment in Higgins v. Gonzales, 8th Cir., No. 06-2556 (3/20/07), finding no discrimination or retaliation.

Arbitral Review of Adverse Actions, Part 1

Undoubtedly today a significant number of adverse action appeals that would otherwise be heard by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) are instead being heard by arbitrators. This article is the first installment of a series which will examine the role of arbitrators in reviewing federal sector adverse action appeals.

Temporary Demotion States Cause of Action

In Bryant v. Leavitt, Civil Action No. 05-250, decided on February 22, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the Department of Health and Human Services’ motion for summary judgment on age and race discrimination claims.

Mediation as ADR Tool

Mediation is not being fully utilized in federal employee cases despite previously being given strong support by the Congress and the executive branch.

Violation of Due Process Rights Found

The Merit Systems Protection Board was called to task by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Kelly v. Dept. of Agriculture, Slip Copy, 2007 WL 786351 (C.A. Fed. March 12, 2007) (non precedential) for not finding a violation of the employee’s due process rights.

How Alternative Dispute Resolution Works

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is a number of different methods for resolving cases which has many advantages over litigation.

Retaliation Not Covered in Age Discrimination Case

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held in a recent decision that federal employees are not protected from retaliation for bringing claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

Tolling of Deadlines for Filing Veterans Preference Complaints

In Kirkendall v. Department of the Army, No. 05-3077, (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2007), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a split en banc decision that allowed “tolling” or extension of deadlines for complaints filed under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act (VEOA).

Lateral Transfer Can be Adverse Job Action

In Czekalski v. Peters, D.C. Cir. No. 05-5221 (2/02/07), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that the reassignment of a female Senior Executive Service employee in the Federal Aviation Administration from supervising 960 employees and a $400 million budget to supervising fewer than 10 employees and little or no budget was an adverse employment action.

Whistleblower Legislation Advances in Congress

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has advanced very significant whistleblower rights legislation which would expand protection for federal employees.

High Court Accepts Discrimination Case

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider a D.C. Circuit decision holding that the speech and debate clause of the U.S. Constitution did not bar federal courts from hearing a Senate staffer’s employment law complaint against a former U.S. senator.

Partial Award of Attorney Fees

In Del Prete v. United States Postal Service, 2007 WL 138030 (MSPB January 18, 2007), the employee appealed his removal, alleging that he did not engage in the charged misconduct, and that the penalty of removal was unreasonable.

TSA Screener Applicants Exempt from Rehabilitation Act

In a recent Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision, the court held that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is exempt from the Rehabilitation Act in hiring decisions with regard to disability.

Tax Consequences of 'Make Whole' Remedy

In a recent decision from the EEOC Office of Federal Operations, the Commission reiterated its position on the remedies available to employees who prevail on discrimination claims involving back pay awards.

Breach of Settlement Agreement Found

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that the U.S. Postal Service materially breached a settlement agreement by failing to timely provide documents necessary for the appellant’s disability retirement application.

MSPB Finds Violation of the Hatch Act

In Special Counsel v. Wilkinson, MSPB Docket No. CB-1216-06-0006-T-1 (December 14, 2006), the Board reversed an administrative law judge's recommended decision finding that the respondent did not violate the Hatch Act and denying the Office of Special Counsel’s request for disciplinary action. The Board found that the respondent violated the Hatch Act and remanded the appeal to the ALJ to determine the appropriate penalty.

Going Straight to Court with EEO Complaint

In a recent decision on reconsideration by a federal judge in the District of Columbia, a federal worker was allowed to take his case directly to federal court 180 days after he filed an EEO complaint with the agency. In Brown v. Broadcasting Board of Governors, No. 05-3149 (D.D.C. Nov. 17, 2006), the plaintiff filed a complaint against the Broadcasting Board of Governors for discrimination on the basis of his race and reprisal for prior EEO activity. Cristian Brown claimed the agency discriminated against him when they failed to select him for two positions as an Assistant Internet Design Coordinator.

Tenure Rights of Transferred Employees (Wednesday, Jan 3, 2007)

Effect of Refusal of Accommodation (Dec 27, 2006)

EEO Complaint Deadline Extended (Wednesday, Dec 20, 2006)

Division of Survivor Annuities (Wednesday, Dec 13, 2006)

Time Is of the Essence in Mixed Cases (Wednesday, Nov 29, 2006)

MSPB Weighs Veterans Preference (Wednesday, Nov 22, 2006)

Federal Circuit Reaffirms Scope of MSPB Jurisdiction (Wednesday, November 15, 2006)

Suits against Employees Debated before High Court (Wed, November 08, 2006)

Right to File EEO Complaint (Wednesday, November 01, 2006)

MSPB Supports OPM’s Denial of Disability Retirement (Wednesday, October 18, 2006)

Split MSPB Denies Whistleblower Status (Wednesday, October 11, 2006)

How to Seek EEO Counseling and File a Formal Complaint (Wed, October 04, 2006)

EEOC Issues Default Judgment (Wednesday, October 25, 2006)

Expert's View: Are You Ready to Retire? (Wednesday, September 27, 2006)

Court Reverses Whistleblower's Reprimand (Wednesday, September 27, 2006)

Even if You’re Not Harmed, It Could Hurt (Wednesday, September 20, 2006)

MSPB Finds Postal Worker Entitled to Disability Retirement (Wednesday, September 13, 2006)

Waiver of EEO Complaint Filing Deadline (August 16, 2006)

Obligation to Exhaust Administrative Remedies (August 02, 2006)

Reasonable Accommodation (July 26, 2006)

Court Denies Attorney Fees (July 19, 2006)

Disclosure of Medical Documents (July 12, 2006)

HIV-Positive Applicant Entitled to Jury Trial (July 05, 2006)

Cat's Paws and Rubber Stamps (June 21, 2006)

Court Revives Claim for Co-Worker Sexual Harassment (June 14, 2006)

Postal Service Employee Entitled to Disability Retirement (June 07, 2006)

Pecuniary Damages in EEOC Award (May 24, 2006)

Nonfrivolous Whistleblower Allegation (May 17, 2006)

EEOC Upholds Denial of Equal Pay Claim (May 10, 2006)

Light at the End of the Tunnel for Whistleblowers? (May 03, 2006)

How to State an EEO Retaliation Claim (April 26, 2006)

Appeal Rights in Involuntary Resignation (April 19, 2006)

Inference of Discrimination (April 12, 2006)

Jury Verdict in Employee's Favor Reinstated (April 5, 2006)

Continuing Violation Theory in EEO Cases (March 29, 2006)

Right to Hearing on Discrimination Allegation (March 15, 2006)

No FEAR Act Regulations (March 8, 2006)

Court Finds No Tangible Employment Action (March 1, 2006)

Hostile Environment Retaliation Claims (February 22, 2006)

Assessing Risk Presented by Disability (February 15, 2006)

EEOC Increases Compensatory Damages Awards (February 8, 2006)

Job Placement Rights after Recovery from Injury (February 1, 2006)

Summary Judgment Ruling Found Premature (January 25, 2006)

Missing the Deadline for Filing an EEO Complaint (January 18, 2006)

Disabled Employee Found Not a Threat to Self or Others (January 11, 2006)

EEOC Increases Attorney Fees in Two Cases (January 4, 2006).

Contact us by-e-mail or call 202-789-0100. Nearby clients in Washington, D.C., Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia often choose to come to our office for clients for an in-person consultation, and we offer a long-distance consultation for federal employees nationwide and abroad.