Posts

Be Prepared and Avoid a Deposition Conniption

, ,

By Dan Gephart, July 17, 2024

A search on YouTube will bring up dozens of videos of famous people from presidents (Bill Clinton and Donald Trump) to pop stars (Justin Bieber, Pharrell Williams) providing testimony in a deposition.

God forbid you find a video of any of the several depositions of Ye. The rapper/design mogul/former Presidential candidate, previously known as Kanye West, has testified under oath that he’s “from Earth” and the “smartest celebrity you’ve ever met” and called an opposing attorney “f-cking stupid.” During one deposition, Ye put on a head covering with the image of Jesus Christ. Even though it “fully covered his face and muffled his voice,” he refused to take it off.

But depositions aren’t just for cases involving the rich and famous. And those being deposed are rarely as outlandish as Ye. (Notice I said rarely, not never.)

In the world of Federal employment law, depositions are an integral part of the discovery process and a critical step in preparing for a hearing before the Merit Systems Protection Board or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. As we did our own preparation for the upcoming Hearing Advocacy: Presenting Cases Before the MSPB and EEOC virtual training (1-4:30 pm ET on August 13-14), we decided to answer some recurring questions about the deposition process.

What is the purpose of a deposition?

The National Institute of Justice defines deposition as the “recorded sworn oral testimony of a party or witness before a trial.” Depositions allow parties to “explore the strengths and weaknesses of the opposing party’s case.”

Depositions provide the opportunity for attorneys to:

  • Discover information.
  • Lock witnesses into their story.
  • Gather evidence.
  • Gauge credibility of witnesses.
  • Preserve testimony of witnesses.

Are there situations where a deposition would not be a good idea?

Absolutely. Avoid depositions when you’re worried it could provide the opposing party insight into your case tactics or give them an opportunity to evaluate you. Also, there are times when the report of investigation provides all the information you need.

Are all depositions videotaped?

Under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.75, depositions may be taken by any method on which the parties agree. Depositions can be recorded by sound or video, and those recordings are supplemental to a transcript by a certified court reporter. The party requesting the deposition is responsible for hiring a court reporter and paying the court reporter costs.

How do you best prepare for a deposition?

FELTG instructor Katherine Atkinson suggests the following steps of preparation:

  • Review prior statements.
  • Determine which exhibits to use.
  • Paginate the number of the exhibits in advance.
  • Copy the exhibits in advance.
  • Prepare a list of questions, keyed to exhibits.
  • Prepare a witness binder and your binder.

Any advice for supervisors who are deposed? 

  • Be ready to answer leading or nonleading questions.
  • Ignore the conflict around you, whether it is attorneys arguing or objecting to a question.
  • Stay focused on the questions being asked.
  • Do not act like Ye. Gephart@FELTG.com

Training on this topic:

And Now a Word With … MSPB Vice Chair Raymond Limon

,

By Dan Gephart, June 17, 2024

Just over two years ago, we interviewed the newly sworn in Merit Systems Protection Board Vice Chair Raymond Limon. We discussed how Limon’s previous Federal work would help as the recently quorumed Board planned to tackle an inherited inventory of nearly 3,800 cases in the middle of a pandemic, while introducing a new e-Appeals system.

Limon’s Federal experience is vast. It included roles with the State Department and the Office of Personnel Management, as well as a stint as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Capital and Diversity and CHCO at the Department of the Interior.

However, the Federal job that best helped Limon move from a career “get-it-done” mindset to a political “lead-it” mindset was a volunteer position he held early on in his Federal career.

“I’ll be honest: It was the Peace Corps when I was in Honduras,” Limon said. “There you’re sitting in a fishbowl. It’s a different culture, a different language. People have perceptions about you that could be true, maybe not true. But all eyes are on you. That kind of vulnerability and confidence and willingness to make yourself vulnerable. I took a lot of those Peace Corps experiences I had to go through at a younger age, now I’m sitting at this table [here at the MSPB for my first transition briefing]. All the career executives are getting ready to brief me. I used to sit in that exact same seat you [the Board staff] used to sit in. I didn’t want to be that person that says: ‘This is what you have to do. You have to do this right away.’”

Limon very graciously took time to talk with FELTG last week over Zoom.

DG: Last time we spoke, you had just been sworn in. Tell us what those early days were like.

RL: A lot of that was listening to (MSPB staff), determining: What are the strategies [to tackle the inherited inventory]? What are the best practices we should focus on? And knowing, at some point, yes, we’re anticipating Cathy’s arrival. [Editor’s note: MSPB Chair Cathy Harris, at that point, had not yet been confirmed.] You want to get stood up, but not get ahead of your skis. You also want to make sure Cathy was set up for success.

As I think back on it, first and foremost it was the wellbeing and safety of our employees. Even though it seems like 20 years ago, it was two short years ago and people were still getting vaccinated and workplace safety practices were in place.

DG: And you had the inherited inventory of cases waiting for you.

RL: The expectation from the White House was: Get busy. Get started on these cases right away. I talked with all of the experts here to get their suggestions on what we should be doing to take on that inherited inventory. We wanted to make sure from a data collection standpoint that we were differentiating between inherited inventory and ongoing inventory.

Our progress has been demonstrated. [Editor’s note: The new Board started with an inherited inventory of 3,793 cases. As of the end of May, they had completed 78 percent.] We also post our progress monthly on the Board’s website. That’s a testament to the team, and all these different stakeholders, to make sure everybody was in the room, that they could hear the famous NASA “Go. No Go.” Make sure everybody was in step before we implemented.

It’s a great story, and I think it offers a lesson for other agencies if they ever find themselves in a similar situation. We dealt with a lack of leadership appointments, but other agencies can have unexpected inventories based on technology issues, budgets. The kind of practice we went through can be a map for another agency.

DG: What can other agencies learn from your approach?

RL: First of all, always listen to your experts. They have not only dealt with these issues for a number of years, they have also anticipated your arrival and come up with some good strategies.

As I alluded to earlier regarding my service in the Peace Corps, I needed to stop, slow my roll and listen so I could better understand the culture, better understand the pain points these people had gone through over the last five years, which was very unique.

I’ve been on that side of the table so many times, when a political team comes in. They sometimes don’t have the patience for you. Half the time in the briefing, they’re not paying attention, they’re on their Blackberries. I didn’t want to be that guy. Going back to my beginning, being a Peace Corps volunteer has probably suited me the best for the job I’m in.

One thing I would not sleep on is your IT infrastructure. You can be coming up with all the ideas but if you don’t have capacity to get that information out to your stakeholders, it’s not going to work.

We were facing a challenging time, rolling in a brand-new e-Appeal system, away from a homegrown series of software and IT systems that helped collect some of our information. At some point the legacy systems aren’t going to be supportable.

Again, don’t get ahead of your skis. If we were going to get out there fast reducing the inherited inventory, we needed the confidence our IT system could keep pace.

DG: Based on the cases you’ve reviewed, what’s the mistake made most often when it comes to performance?

RL: I’ll put the bottom line up front: It starts with supervisors. People typically don’t leave the agency necessarily for more money. They leave their supervisors. When it comes to performance management we have to step back. I really do believe performance is a team event, everything from design of your performance program to the development of the performance standards to how you communicate that with your team, how you work with your unions, to roll out, etc. Going back to IT world. I’m at that age and experience, where I transitioned paper processing for time and attendance and/or performance management systems to a web environment and it is not easy.

It’s very important that the supervisor take his or her role seriously, understanding the performance management system, being involved at the beginning stage of it, the communication side of it, understanding how developing your employees is the right thing to do.

Now that I’m, of course, adjudicating and ruling on these cases where employees felt like they were not being treated fairly in the performance process, or management is defending its actions, it basically comes down to there was a communication breakdown. If the standards weren’t completely clear, did they come down from the strategic goals to department goals to office goals to the employee?

When we develop performance standards and metrics, every employee needs to feel it was written for them, to be able to say: “You understand me. This is what I do. It makes sense, now I’m now going to go out and do it.”

A lot of times supervisors, when they don’t clarify and they’re not involved in process, they kind of treat it like they have to instead of they get to, some kind of communication mishap is going to occur, and it manifests itself into litigation. I do see the worst of the worst of that.

I also know from sitting on the CHCO Council for 16 years, there are success stories. There are good ways to do it. It’s not all doom and gloom. In my world, I’m seeing the manifestation of the lack of communication, supervisors not taking their jobs seriously because of several reasons – one being, they were appointed to be supervisor and shouldn’t have been. They didn’t have the competencies, the ability to be a supervisor.

Are agencies holding the probationary periods for supervisors in check? Some do. Some don’t.

Are supervisors being rewarded for growing their people? When supervisors turn down shadowing opportunities to allow employees to go out and strengthen their skillset, but their managers are hanging on tightly, saying I can’t lose you. Nobody else knows how to write that report. There’s no way I’m going to let you go off to training or that detail.

That’s where we’re missing the forest through the trees. When supervisors are so locked into the tyranny of the present, they forget their role as a supervisor is spending at least 25 percent of their time, according to OPM’s supervisory guide, managing and developing people.

DG: What trends are you seeing in new PFRs that are being filed?

RL: I’ve not necessarily noticed a change in types of cases we’re getting. Maybe this is more of a byproduct of the growth of the Board. Through e-Appeal, we’re finding, in my humble opinion, that moving of data and pleadings is happening more efficiently. Looking at the inherited inventory, there were a lot of issues about timeliness, for instance. Was it completely faxed in on time? Did the person receive notice? There was some of that.

We’ll continue to see a significant number of whistleblowing cases. I think 20-25 percent of our cases involve some level of whistleblowing, either as an affirmative defense or an individual right of action. I think that trend line is going to continue to grow.

DG: The Board recently issued a “Notice of Opportunity,” which it has rarely done. I know you can’t talk about the specifics of the case in question, but can you describe the process that leads to a decision to issue a similar notice?

RL: Under the Board’s regulations, when we are looking at a case of first impression or something that we believe needs clarification, we can solicit stakeholder feedback. Recently, we did this in a matter that involves the whistleblower statutes and asked our stakeholders for their viewpoints on the questions we posed.  Also, even though I’ve been in multiple agencies and worked with many employment attorneys over the years, I can say unequivocally the best attorneys work here at the Board. No knock on anyone else, but these attorneys are the best.

They live and breathe it. They read all of the opinions coming from the different courts. We shouldn’t rely on our own hubris. It’s OK to ask for help. With our regulations, we have the authority to go out and ask for briefs. As in our recent notice, we post a couple issues, see what the public thinks. Bring that back in and, hopefully, we start to draft and finalize that opinion.

Gephart@FELTG.com

For more on the Board’s happenings and cases, check out FELTG’s newly-updated class Advanced MSPB Law: Navigating Complex Issues, July 9-11.

 

When All Yell Breaks Loose: Rude Behavior and Discipline

, ,

By Dan Gephart, June 10, 2024

On my morning coffee runs to Wawa, I drive by a pedestrian crosswalk and navigate a hectic parking lot that resembles a Richard Scarry book. This daily caffeine quest often reminds me there are two kinds of people in this world.

There’s the kind who say thank you when you hold a door open for them. These are the people who give you a nod and slightly pick up their pace when you let them cross in front of your car. Then there’s the other kind, who respond to your act of kindness with, well, nothing. No nod. No eye contact. No words of gratitude.

These rude folks aggravate me, even though I know they shouldn’t. But it’s a brief encounter. And once that coffee is securely in my hands, the lack of courtesy I encountered is long forgotten. Also, it’s a lower level of rudeness – one borne of self-absorption, not aggression.

But aggressive rudeness is out there. Just ask any retail clerk. And it’s in the Federal workplace, too, as recent decisions bear out. Unfortunately, there’s no latte or cappuccino available that’ll put these people out of your mind.

In Hornsby v. FHFA, DC-07520125-0576-I-2 (April 28, 2022) (NP), an employee was removed based upon 18 specifications of conduct unbecoming a Federal manager. This guy must be fun to sit next to on an airplane. In one meeting, he held up an email from another employee, who was also in the meeting, and said he found the email to be “[expletive] offensive.”

In this case, the Board sustained only five of the 18 specifications – but the meeting outburst was one of those sustained.

In Brooks v. Small Business Administration, DOCKET NUMBER SF-0752-23-0197-I-1, (Aug. 8, 2023), the MSPB administrative judge (AJ) sustained three specifications involving a loan specialist’s rude behavior. Those specifications involved emails that “impugn[s] the motives and character” of the loan specialist’s supervisor, and “levie[s] vague threats against her.”

Examples of those emails:

  • “I do not trust anything that you have to say because you’re not a credible person when you take into account what you were ‘willing’ to do against me without any real justification and or rationale. You’re (sic) morality and ethics are very questionable. And this too will come to light as well.”
  • “Obviously, you don’t care about what is right or wrong when you literally ignored the ‘facts’ of what I stated. Simply want to use your authority whether it’s right or wrong obviously doesn’t matter with you. And it continually shows in every way. Your time is indeed coming when you will have to be held ‘accountable’ to what you’ve done and continue to do against me.”
  • “I do not ‘personally’ want to review any 4th qtr, or any other year-end review with you because I do not trust anything that you have to say. You do not have any credibility with me.”

In Ikossi v. Department of Defense, DC-0752-17-0357-I-2 (April 10, 2024) (NP), the Board upheld the removal of a scientist on charges of conduct unbecoming and failure to follow instructions. The conduct unbecoming charge was bolstered by six specifications of rude, uncooperative, and unprofessional behavior.

In one of those instances, a supervisor and IT professional were assisting the scientist with reducing the size of her electronic mailbox and syncing her new computer. The scientist pointed her finger in the IT professional’s face and yelled at her. During a meeting to discuss a reasonable accommodation request for telework, the scientist yelled at an HR representative and then “jumped up and down.”

In another meeting, the scientist’s supervisor asked her to read the emails that were sent to her. According to the supervisor, the scientist replied:  “I am not going to read anything” and “You don’t know what you are doing.” When the supervisor attempted to read a printout of one of the emails, the employee grabbed them from supervisor’s hand and called her “stupid.”

In Salyer v. VA, DC 0752-17-0635-I-1 (May 20, 2024) (NP), the Board upheld an employee’s removal, which was supported by nine charges, including (you guessed it) a charge of conduct unbecoming. The appellant’s behavior is a textbook example of rude.

The employee would allegedly “yell” and “raise her voice” at employees. Most of the diatribes were aimed at subordinate employees, but at other times she raised her voice without directing the ire at anyone specifically. When someone told the appellant she needed to stop yelling, she replied: “I haven’t yelled, maybe I should start yelling so people know what my yelling is like.”

This kind of behavior is misconduct, and failure to address it will sink morale, make it harder to meet mission, and could eventually lead to harassment complaints.

In the Hornsby decision, the Board noted it has “frequently held that rude, discourteous, and unprofessional behavior in the workplace is outside the accepted standards of conduct reasonably expected by agencies and can be the subject of discipline.” As FELTG Instructor Ann Modlin told us last year – words and attitude matter. gephart@feltg.com

[Editor’s note: If you’re looking for more guidance on challenging conduct and performance issues, bring FELTG directly to your agency to deliver our flagship UnCivil Servant class. Email info@feltg.com for more information.]

And Now a Word With … Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger

,

As the new head of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), Hampton Dellinger is immersed in understanding and appreciating the role of whistleblowers. Read more.

Read more

The Why and How of Starting Misconduct Investigations

, ,

By Dan Gephart, May 13, 2024

There’s a buzz at your agency about potential misconduct taking place. It’s been suggested you perform an administrative investigation. This is somewhat new to you, and you have questions, mostly:

  • What’s the goal of the investigation?
  • How do I get started?

You’ve come to the right place. However, if you are currently enveloped in an investigation and have more advanced questions, you should check out Ann Boehm’s recent Good News column, where she addressed several inquiries she’s received when doing investigations training. (If you don’t see your question, send it to Ask FELTG.)

For now, we’re going to focus on the two aforementioned questions. Let’s start with the goal of investigations: Why should you investigate?

Agency administrative investigations are usually conducted because of potential misconduct or civil rights discrimination. (Sidenote: To be clear, discriminating against or harassing employees is itself misconduct.)

For misconduct investigations, you need to know who did what and when so that management can determine the proper course of action; and if that action is discipline, to ensure that it can withstand third-party review.

This is serious stuff. As Ann wrote in Good News: “A good investigation is the foundation for effective discipline in the Federal government.”

So, there’s your mission. What you’re about to embark on is important. It’s no surprise then, that a key to a successful investigation is preparation and planning. Let’s take a look at what you need to know to get started:

  • Legal rights and obligations that apply to Federal employees who are witnesses.
  • Procedures necessary for management to take a disciplinary action.
  • Categories of actionable conduct.
  • What constitutes evidence, and how to gather it.
  • The concept of employee affirmative defenses.
  • How to properly document, store and safeguard evidence gathered during the course of an investigation.

You’ll need patience. This probably isn’t something you’re going to wrap up in a day or two.

It goes without saying that objectivity is critical. However, our brains are wired to make quick judgments on what we’ve seen. Resist the urge to jump to a conclusion, at the very least until you have every bit of evidence you can collect.

Where do you go next? How do you learn all the stuff you’re supposed to know? Ann will present Misconduct Investigations: Get Them Right from the Start on July 24. Want to dive in even further? FELTG’s Workplace Investigations Week will run Aug. 19-23. Good luck out there. Gephart@FELTG.com

The Clean Record Provision is Not Always So Clean

, ,

By Dan Gephart, April 15, 2024

If you’re thinking of using a clean record provision to settle a potentially expensive and litigious employment law situation, you’re not alone. But while clean record agreements are a popular alternative disciplinary tool, they are not without their own set of problems.

For the uninitiated, a typical clean record provision is a term in a settlement agreement in which the agency agrees to change, remove, or withhold potential negative information about the employee’s performance or conduct, while the employee agrees to drop employment-related claims against the agency.

Sixteen months into his term, President Trump released a flurry of executive orders (EOs) impacting the Federal workplace, including one that effectively banned the use of CRAs. Those actions were overturned when President Biden issued an EO rescinding them.

Meanwhile, OPM, who had developed and implemented regulations to comply with President Trump’s EOs, had to re-develop and implement updated regulations. At the time, OPM guidance said agencies were permitted to implement a clean record agreement with an employee, even though the regulations prohibited such an action. Many FELTG readers told us judges were not keen on that approach. Fortunately, OPM regs now match President Biden’s EO. We again have consistency.

The return of CRAs seems like an obvious win-win. Agencies save the time and money of litigating a case, while avoiding the impact languishing cases tend to have on agency credibility and supervisor morale.

Meanwhile, the agreements give employees the opportunity to apply for future positions without any stains on their Federal personnel records.

Or do they?

In its 2013 report Clean Record Settlement Agreements and the Law, the MSPB stated: “Several of the appellant attorneys we spoke with indicated that the primary reason why appellants seek clean records is to aid them in their efforts to obtain another Federal position.”

And, as you know as a federal employee, there is paperwork that goes along with securing a federal job. (I’m looking at you OF-306!). And you sure as heck better not lie on those reports lest you find yourself even less Federally employable.

Honesty isn’t a one-sided coin when it comes to CRAs. Agencies are required to be truthful, especially when talking to Federal investigators in connection with background investigations. We explained as much in a somewhat-recent Ask FELTG article. This requirement to be truthful also applies to suitability determinations and other inquiries related to vetting for personnel security.

But wait, there’s more. Other reasons a CRA may not be the best option include:

  • An appellant does not need show actual harm, such as a failure to obtain a position or other form of monetary loss, in order to establish that a clean record (nondisclosure) provision has been materially breached. Cardoza v. DOJ, 53 MSPR 264 (1992).
  • A clean record provision implies a confidentiality clause when one is not present. In Torres v. DHS, 110 MSPR 482 (2009), the agency agreed to replace the removal SF-50 with a resignation SF-50. However, several former coworkers told a private company that the employee resigned in lieu of removal.
  • CRA compliance is not easy to police, especially as time wears on.

More than half of the settlements before the MSPB involve CRAs. Here are some of the issues to consider when determining whether to go the CRA route:

  • What items will be removed from a record?
  • What systems of records will be cleaned?
  • What obligations does an agency have to support the record in communications with others?
  • Who is bound by the commitments?
  • Details on references.
  • How things outside the agreement can affect the ability of parties to meet their obligations.

This is not to say that CRA can’t be an effective time and money-saving tool. As is the case with other alternative discipline strategies, there are great advantages. You just have to do your homework before you jump in. The best way to do that is to join FELTG President Deborah J. Hopkins on May 21 at 1pm ET for Clean Records, Last Rites, Last Chances, and Other Discipline Alternatives. Gephart@FELTG.com

And Now a Word With … EEOC Commissioner Kalpana Kotagal

,

Kalpana Kotagal, the most recent addition to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, has vast experience in DEIA issues, including co-authoring the Oscar ceremony-famous “Inclusion Rider.” Learn more.

Read more

Use These Tips to Improve Your Douglas Factor Analysis

, ,

By Dan Gephart, March 11, 2024

With the constant changes in Federal employment law over the last several years, it’s sometimes easy to forget not only how useful the Douglas factors are when determining a reasonable penalty for employee misconduct, but also how long we’ve had these factors.

The Douglas factors turn 43 next month. The same day the decision in Douglas v. VA, 5 MSPB 313 (1981) was published, many Americans were turning (literally and physically) their television sets to CBS to watch brand new episodes of Dukes of Hazzard and Dallas.

Considering a large portion of the Federal workplace couldn’t tell Boss Hogg from Rosco or venture a guess at who shot J.R., let’s just say it’s been a while. To help keep your Douglas skills and knowledge sharp, consider these few tips.

1 – Make sure you’re spending a reasonable amount of time and effort on your Douglas analysis. How much is reasonable? In her upcoming (April 24) class Do You Really Know How to Use the Douglas Factors?, FELTG Instructor Ann Boehm suggests: “Usually, half of the effort that goes into defending a misconduct removal should be devoted to the agency’s Douglas Factor analysis.”

The safest way to handle the Douglas Factor analysis is to complete a Douglas Factor Worksheet, attach that worksheet to the proposal notice, and then in the body of the proposal notice, include a sentence that says this: “In selecting a penalty, I relied on the assessment of the relevant penalty selection factors as described in the attached Douglas Factor Worksheet.”

This has been standard FELTG advice for a long time now. As FELTG President Deborah J. Hopkins once wrote on the topic: “We don’t just do that because we think we’re smart; we do that because the law requires us to give the employee the reasons relied upon for the proposed action, and attaching said worksheet ensures we comply with the law, every single time.”

2 – Use the Merit Systems Protection Board’s example. The MSPB rarely independently evaluates the Douglas penalty assessment factors. Instead, the Board generally sticks to evaluating the agency’s evaluation of the factors. Even if the Board members might not fully agree with the penalty, MSPB must defer to the agency’s decision as long as the agency proves its charge(s) and shows the penalty was “within the bounds” of reasonableness.

But then came Purifoy v. VA, CH-0752-14-0185-M-1 (2022)(NP). You probably noticed the parenthesized “NP” at the end of the case citation. Yes, this is a nonprecedential decision. But it is, also, to use Deb’s word — consequential.

Why the lofty word choice for a non-precedential decision?

Purifoy is, we think, the first time the current Board independently assessed the Douglas factors on its own. Read the case and think about the Board’s reasoning. You will be in much better shape to defend the agency’s penalty selection for years into the future.

3 – Consider both aggravating and mitigating Douglas factors and include them in the proposal notice. Some will tell you that only aggravating factors belong in the proposal notice. After all, while most all adverse actions have some mitigating factors, it’s usually the aggravating factors that control the outcome, and only aggravating factors are required at the proposal stage.

However, former FELTG President and founder Bill Wiley had this to say about that: “Do you REALLY want to bet your case on defending the evaluation of whether a specific factor is aggravating or mitigating? Length of Service can be either aggravating or mitigating, depending on how long the employee has been a civil servant. We have to consider both aggravating and mitigating factors in the final decision. Why would we not put them all in the proposal so that the employee knows what we’re doing and why? Maybe we’ve forgotten something (e.g., military service) that is required to be considered. The employee should have the opportunity to know this stuff so she can respond and defend herself completely.”

Join us April 15-19 for MSPB Law Week, where you can get the most effective guidance and up-to-date information via an engaging week of training focusing on the legal requirements and best practices for penalties and much more. Gephart@FELTG.com

 

 

 

And Now a Word With … Lindsay Laferriere of the Partnership for Public Service

,

Comments can be, at the very least, disrespectful, disillusioned, and highly uneducated. In this case, they showed a complete misunderstanding of the agency mission and a mistrust of government, in general. Read more.

Read more

Violence Prevention Measures Necessary in These Dangerous Times

, ,

By Dan Gephart, February 20, 2024

If it feels like a dangerous time for Feds, that’s because it is. Attorney General Merrick Garland warned earlier this year about a “deeply disturbing spike” in threats against Federal workers.

A few weeks after Garland’s announcement, the unimaginable happened. A 32-year-old man killed and decapitated his father in their Bucks County, Pa. home. The man then posted a 14-minute YouTube video in which he held up his father’s decapitated head and called him a traitor. Why, according to the son, was the father a traitor? Because he was a Federal employee. The man then urged others to commit similarly violent acts against government officials. Police recovered a USB device that allegedly contained pictures of Federal buildings and instructions on how to make an explosive device.

Meanwhile, it’s election season when the discourse about Federal employees often turns ugly. This year, the rancor is uglier. It’s also quite dangerous. It was this election season, after all, when a major presidential candidate, who has since dropped out, promised, if elected, to “start slitting throats” in the Federal workplace.

We don’t want to be alarmist, but we do want to ensure your agency is as prepared as possible if violence shows up at the office, whether it’s caused by a current or former employee, a family member of an employee, a customer, or someone unknown to the agency.

FELTG instructor Shana Palmieri provides the following guidance (and much more) during her Assessing Risk and Taking Action: Threats and Violence in the Federal Workplace training (next held on April 3.) [Editor’s note: To have Shana teach this class directly to your agency, contact Info@FELTG.com.]

You should have a set of policies and procedures in place, and they should be accessible to all employees. Those policies and procedures need to include:

  • How the agency handles any incident of threatening or inappropriate behavior.
  • The process for reporting the behavior (incident reporting).
  • How the agency handles each type of violence.
  • Training that will be provided to staff.
  • The assessment protocol once an incident report has been submitted.
  • Who is responsible for the assessment process.
  • Who is responsible for the development of the management plan.
  • How staff will be notified of the management plan if there is a potential risk.

You should also have a prevention strategy that includes:

  • An effective incident reporting process. This process should encourage employees to submit concerns.
  • A relationship with local law enforcement. Does your agency receive reports from local law enforcement of potential risks within the community?
  • Effective protection. Physical security alarm systems, security staff, building access, sign-in processes for the general public.
  • An effective automated warning system.

Another key component of prevention strategy is take all threats of violence seriously. And take  immediate action when those threats come from current employees. Remember, a threat of violence is misconduct. Work your way through the Douglas factors, of course, and determine whether the threats warrant a suspension or removal.

There are numerous cases where removal for threats have been upheld – even as a first offense. In Robinson v. USPS, 30 M.S.P.R. 678 (1986), the MSPB found an employee’s verbal threat to a supervisor warranted removal despite the employee’s lack of prior discipline and four years of service. Per the Board: Such behavior affects the agency’s obligation to maintain a safe workplace for its employees, thus impinging upon the efficiency of the service.

The Federal Circuit echoed those thoughts in 2010 and reiterated them more recently in Jolly v. Department of the Army, No. 2017-1919 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2017):

“Where an employee makes ‘threats … against her supervisor [that are] unprofessional and inappropriate, and . . . they adversely affect the work atmosphere,’ the penalty of removal is ‘within the permissible range of reasonableness.’” Gephart@FELTG.com