Blowing the Investigators’ Cover
A 22-year Philadelphia mail carrier failed to convince the appeals court to overturn his firing based on charges of interfering in a criminal investigation and improper conduct toward a postal customer.
A 22-year Philadelphia mail carrier failed to convince the appeals court to overturn his firing based on charges of interfering in a criminal investigation and improper conduct toward a postal customer.
This federal employee’s disciplinary case involved a charge of nepotism, a violation that one does not encounter every day in the federal workplace.
A probationary employee failed to disclose on his application for a supervisory EO Specialist position with the Department of Labor that he had previously been convicted of a crime. The agency ran a background check and discovered otherwise.
A Bureau of Prisons correctional officer in Atlanta, fired for failing a random drug test, was unsuccessful in his defense that the Thanksgiving cookies were laced with marijuana without his knowledge.
A housekeeping aid at a VA medical center was indefinitely suspended following his indictment on four counts, including possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
In Kennington v. Merit Systems Protection Board, CAFC No. 2011-3192 (nonprecedential), 12/13/11, the court recounts what many would view as odd behavior, including claims from the employee that he “previously worked as a psychic” and “could communicate with angels, God, and Jesus.”
Is a performance standard reasonable where it requires that a Veterans Affairs rating specialist achieve at least 85 percent accuracy? In Fisher v. Department of Veterans Affairs (C.A.F.C. No. 2011-3046 (nonprecedential), 11/14/11), the appeals court agrees with the arbitrator who ruled that it was a reasonable standard.
An Interior Department economist was bestowed with a $383,600 award by a group the employee assisted in bringing a successful false claims action involving underpayment by oil companies. The employee was fired. Here is the most recent appeals court decision. It isn’t over yet.
A federal appeals court has backed disciplinary action against a postal service manager that was taken for his sex-based and race-based comments as well as an apparent intentional “dropping of his pants” at work.
An employee with Homeland Security refused to follow orders, attend counseling sessions or to sign off on a letter of instruction. She got fired and went to court to try to save her job.