Articles Posted in Government Employees

Summary: This article gives a very brief overview of what you can do if you are or were a federal employee, settled an MSPB appeal with the government, and are now concerned it is breaching its agreement. 

Say you’re a federal employee who, unfortunately, had to file an appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”).  Perhaps you were improperly reduced in grade, removed from your position, or you were subjected to a prohibited personnel practice.  A final hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) with the MSPB may be the way to fix the situation.  Other times, before the hearing you and the federal agency you work(ed) for may be able to work out some deal to put an end to the situation, like them reinstating you, paying you lost wages, agreeing not to sabotage your career, or the like.

You might or might not have an attorney at that time.  That deal may be great on paper (and it should always be in writing!), but what happens if your employer refuses to do what it said it would do?  That sort of thing is not necessarily common, nor is it unheard of. Unfortunately, there are federal agencies that have problems with a culture of retaliation.

Well folks, everything is bigger in Texas and our laws and penalties are certainly no exception. Despite the efforts of Texas Democrats to block a voting restriction bill, that bill and 665 additional bills were passed, many of which took effect on September 1, 2021. Here are some of the major new laws that took effect on Wednesday:

“Heartbeat” abortion ban.

One of the major and—undoubtedly most controversial laws—that took effect is the “heartbeat” abortion bill. While many Texans and Americans hoped the U.S. Supreme Court would weigh in on the proposed bill, the Court sat idle, allowing Texas to pass a bill that could prevent the vast majority of abortions in the state, upending nearly fifty-years of established legal precedent.  This new law prohibits abortion once a heartbeat is detected in an embryo, which could happen as early as about six weeks, before many women even know they are pregnant.

Many employees may be unsure what to do if they discover they have been treated unlawfully by their employer.  Going straight into a lawsuit can be a scary step, and is not always the right one.  If you thought “there must be some government agency that can investigate and fix what happened,” often you would be right.  However, that is not always the case, and sometimes the existence of that agency can complicate things.  This article gives a basic overview of the “exhaustion of administrative remedies,” so that if you find yourself in that situation, you might know to avoid some pitfalls in the law and take advantage of opportunities to right how you were wronged.  

Not all employment laws are created equal.  Some, like the laws that prohibit things like sex, race, or age discrimination, are “administered” by agencies like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the Texas Workforce Commission—Civil Rights Division (for equivalent Texas laws).  That means that you can file a complaint with those agencies to be investigated and (ideally) resolved before any lawsuit needs to be filed.  Similarly, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration administers OSH Act retaliation claims, the Department of Labor administers unpaid overtime claims, and the National Labor Relations Board administers claims (like for anti-union activities) under the National Labor Relations Act.  There are lots of agencies like those.    

For some types of legal claims, like unpaid overtime, you can decide to go the agency or just file a lawsuit.  For other laws, like the Family and Medical Leave Act, there is not an agency to go to at all, and your main recourse is to just file a lawsuit.  Still other laws, like the OSH Act or the NLRA, make it so you can only bring a complaint with the government, and generally do not have any right to file a suit at all.           

Top10Blog-PostMost Federal employees enjoy an entire administrative regime dedicated to vindicating their unique rights. Out of this regime there are three big enforcement mechanisms that come to mind: Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) offices, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), and the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). These three agencies are often entangled together, but each of them is dedicated in some way to addressing PPPs or prohibited personnel practices. A PPP is exactly what the name implies: certain practices in a Federal workplace that are unallowed under the law. The law lists out about 14 things which qualify as “prohibited.” It is important to note, however, that not all Federal employees can find relief through reporting these practices. Employees of local or state governments, uniformed military members, people who work in Congress or for the courts, United States Postal Service employees (except in specific situations), and finally employees of the FBI and CIA are not covered. The list of who is not covered is more expansive, than what is listed above, but those are the ones that may be the most relevant to the general body of Federal employees. To get a better idea of what the different PPPs are and how they would function, below are brief illustrations of the main PPPs using Official, an agency official in a supervisory capacity, C a favored employee, and D a non-favored employee.

First, there is a PPP that prohibits discrimination based on protected characteristics under federal law. This PPP tracks Title VII for the most part, but also adds in marital status and political affiliation to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, and disability. Discrimination PPPs are handled primarily through a Federal agency’s EEO office, but the Office of Special Counsel may step in if the discrimination is based on marital status or political affiliation. Adversity based on political affiliation is also covered in a different PPP. For example, if Official attempted to influence D to hand out flyers for a specific political candidate or decided not to promote D because she refused to hand out flyers, it would be considered a separate PPP from discrimination based on political affiliation. 

There are also four PPPs that have to do with violations of the merit systems that civil service is based off of. Things like considering a recommendation that was made by someone else outside of the agency. For example, if Official heard from Friend that C would be a good fit for the job and hires C based off of what Friend told him and not through his personal assessment – it is considered a PPP. Likewise if Official decided to give D an artificially low rating so that she would not be eligible for promotion, the Official would be considered to be “obstructing competition.” Official would also commit a PPP if he approached D and told her she should not apply for the promotion to remove her from competition because Official knew C was applying for the same job. In that same vein, Official could also not change the requirements for that promotion to give C an unauthorized advantage. Finally, if Official’s daughter were to apply to a position in his agency, Official could not hire her because she’s his daughter. This would also apply if Official called up his friend at another agency and attempted to influence the other agency to hire his daughter. 

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is part of the Department of Labor and administers the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act), as well as numerous other safety and whistleblower laws.  OSHA also sets safety standards for various industries.  Because of OSHA, many employers have a general duty to prevent working conditions that pose a risk of serious and recognized harm.

Continue reading ›

Under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, Texas government and public employees are entitled to certain protections. Generally, the Clause prohibits the government from depriving individuals of their life, liberty, or property interest without due process. In most cases, Texas government employees reasonably expect to continue their employment. This reasonable expectation results in a protected property interest.

Texas government employers should provide their employees with their due process rights before terminating their employee’s positions. Due process includes providing an employee with notice and a fair hearing. If a Texas employee believes their employer violated their due process rights, the courts will evaluate their case by examining two main factors. First, the court needs to determine whether the individual has a protected interest in continued employment and, second, whether the employer provided them with notice and a suitable level of process.

Typically, an employee’s expectation derives from their employer’s handbook or policy. In these cases, an employer’s policy or procedure may indicate that termination may only occur for “just cause.” Sometimes employer’s policies will further explain that other adverse employment actions, such as demotion and suspension, cannot happen without just cause as well. Although there is no official definition for “just cause,” there are many factors the courts will examine to determine whether the circumstances meet the threshold. Some elements include: the warning, the reasonableness of the prohibited behavior, the inquiry to determine fault, if the investigation was fair, whether the rules are applied consistently, and the employee’s record. Even if a Texas employer’s handbook, contract, or policy does not explicitly provide a property interest, their past practices may establish otherwise.

A whistleblower is an employee who reports a workplace violation. Whistleblowers are responsible for making the workplace a safer and more equal environment. However, employees often do not report violations in the workplace because they fear that if they did, their livelihood might be jeopardized based on potential retribution from their employers. To promote workplace safety and to ensure that companies and organizations are not violating the law, federal and state governments enacted various whistleblower protection acts.

Most recently, a presidential Executive Order required the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to establish the Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection (OAWP). This office is designed to ensure the VA is accountable for its policies, procedures, and conduct. VA employees, potential employees, and former employees can report certain violations to this office. The OAWP is required to receive and investigate these disclosures. Furthermore, they ensure the employee does not face any retaliation for their disclosure. Retaliation includes actions taken against the employee based on their complaints such as termination, demotion, or any other adverse employment action.

Typically, the OAWP will investigate allegations regarding violations of rules or laws, fund mismanagement, abuse of authority, and behavior that is dangerous to public health or safety. The OAWP directly reviews claims of misconduct, retaliation, and performance issues that involve certain VA employees. The scope of the investigation is limited to VA employees that are senior executives or those that are in a confidential or policy-making position. The office will investigate supervisory employees if the allegations concern retaliation against an employee.

Veterans returning to the United States may face many challenges while trying to adjust to civilian life. Unfortunately, many veterans face employment discrimination, and they may have difficulty obtaining and maintaining employment. Often, employers are reluctant to hire individuals who suffer from disabilities related to their deployment. This can have startling consequences for the workforce, since almost a third of the 12 million veterans report having some type of disability.

In response to the rising reports of employment discrimination, Congress enacted the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA). At its inception, the VEVRAA provided Vietnam veterans with protection against employment discrimination. Some common forms of employment discrimination veterans face are when an employer claims a job is no longer available, an employer states they do not want to hire veterans for fear of future deployments, an employer counts military leave against accrued vacation time, or an employer harasses or otherwise retaliates against a service member.

Although the name suggests otherwise, the VEVRAA protections apply to several categories of protected veterans. Protected veterans include those who were:

  • Released from active duty because of a service-connected disability or entitled to compensation under the Veterans Administration;
  • Recently released;
  • On active duty; or
  • Campaign or Armed Forces medal recipients.

Continue reading ›

Recently, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion that will have a significant impact in federal age discrimination cases against government employers. In the case Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido, the Court held the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) applies to government employers of all sizes.

The ADEA

When the ADEA was passed in 1967, it added age to the list of characteristics that could not be used by an employer as a basis for an adverse employment decision. Under section 630(b), the ADEA defines the term employer as “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has twenty or more employees.” However, the statute also states that an employer “also means … a State or political subdivision of a State and any agency or instrumentality of a State or a political subdivision of a State.”

The Facts of the Case

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiffs were two men, aged 46 and 54, who were terminated from their positions by the defendant fire department when the fire department began facing budgetary concerns. The fire department was a political subdivision of the State of Arizona. At the time they were fired, the employees were the oldest two firefighters in the department.

Continue reading ›

In 1979, the United States Civil Service Commission established the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which is an agency designed to prevent federal employers from engaging in prohibited personnel practices. Under the MSPB, federal employees are entitled to a hearing after they are terminated, suspended, or demoted because of their performance or conduct.The MSPB process is crucial for employees who believe that their conduct did not warrant the adverse employment action taken against them. The Civil Service Reform Act mandates that federal employees are given their due process when terminated. This is to prevent powerful federal employers from engaging in arbitrary employment actions. Of course, when a federal employer takes an adverse action against an employee, there are lasting impacts on that person’s personal and professional life.

The MSPB is a complex entity, and there are many roadblocks that an employee may encounter, due to the nature of the employing agency and the processes involved. First, employees should consult with an attorney to determine whether their adverse employment action will trigger an MSPB appeal. Although it seems clear in some situations, MSPB protections are not extended to all types of federal positions. However, some common situations when an appeal is triggered are when there is an adverse action or a forced retirement. Furthermore, even though the MSPB will attempt to handle a claim within six months, the Board may also pressure the parties to settle in order to more quickly resolve the matter. A Texas employment lawyer can guide employees in effectively working through these steps.

Continue reading ›

Contact Information