Client, federal law enforcement officer with the Department of Homeland Security, receives proposed reduction in grade and suspension for alleged misconduct.
Pursuant to representation during the administrative process, the agency rescinds the initial proposed discipline and client receives small suspension. Client returns to full duty.
Client, federal law enforcement officer with the USDA, becomes subject of administrative and criminal investigation for alleged misconduct during the performance of law enforcement duties.
Pursuant to representation during the investigative process, Client is cleared of any wrongdoing and misconduct. Client returns to full duty.
Since the enactment of the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017 (the Act), 38 USC § 714, questions have remained about its application. The enactment of this statute essentially made it much easier for the Department of Veterans Affairs to remove employees for alleged misconduct without following long-standing Supreme Court precedent of Douglas v. Veterans Affairs, 5 M.S.P.R. 280, 305-306 (1981).
Federal employees were entitled to a much stricter due process entitlement regarding their rights during an agency disciplinary proceeding against them. The long-standing precedent of Douglas enumerated the 12 Douglas factors that agencies are bound by to consider during a disciplinary proceeding.
The 2017 714 statute stripped away many of an employee’s due process rights and granted the agency an easier path to remove an employee without the checks and balances federal employees enjoyed when defending a discipline and penalty action.
Since inception of the 714 statute the agency had maintained a position that the Douglas factors no longer applied during the discipline and penalty stage when it removed an employee.
The Conner case was appealed to the Federal Circuit Court who affirmed that the Douglas factors do apply to the VA during the discipline process. This is the first time the court had corrected the agency’s erroneous belief that the Douglas factors did not apply. This will significantly change the agency discipline process moving forward.
Client, an employee with the Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, receive notice of a proposed discipline action that would remain on the employee’s official personnel file for the duration of employment.
After conducting a written response and contact with the agency, the agency deciding official rescinds the proposed discipline plan action in its entirety. Client returns the full duty without any discipline on record.
Client, a GS 15 manager with the Department of Defense receives notice of proposed removal for alleged misconduct. A written response is prepared on client’s behalf and an oral reply is conducted with the deciding official.
After conducting the oral reply, the deciding official mitigates the rescinds proposed discipline action to a period of suspension. Client returns the full duty.
Client, a GS-14 law enforcement officer with the Department of Homeland Security, previously was removed for alleged misconduct. Ultimately the agency rescinded the action and returned client back to full duty with all back pay and relief the client was entitled to. The agency indicated that they would repropose the action again to correct the significant due process deficiencies occurring in the original removal action.
After significant discussion and application of the facts and evidence, the agency issued a letter of reprimand in lieu of the original removal action and the case was closed out without any further action. Client remains in full duty status.
Client, a GS-14 law enforcement officer with the Department of Homeland Security, previously was removed for alleged misconduct. Ultimately the agency rescinded the action and returned client back to full duty with all back pay and relief the client was entitled to. The agency indicated that they would repropose the action again to correct the significant due process deficiencies occurring in the original removal action.
After significant discussion and application of the facts and evidence, the agency issued a letter of reprimand in lieu of the original removal action and the case was closed out without any further action. Client remains in full duty status.
Client, a GS 15 manager with the Department of Defense, is advised that he is under criminal and administrative investigation for alleged misconduct regarding subordinate employees.
Pursuant to representation, Office of Inspector General investigators conduct investigation. After discussion and review of documentation, appellant is cleared of any wrongdoing. Client subsequently obtains a position with a senior executive service (SES). Client remains on full duty.
