Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Whitmore began his federal government career in 1972. In 1990 his group transferred to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Prior to 2005, Whitmore regularly received better than satisfactory performance reviews, bonuses, and awards, and was never subject to discipline. In 2005, Whitmore began making public disclosures that OSHA was failing to enforce its recordkeeping requirements and acquiescing in industry reports of impossibly low numbers of injuries and illnesses. He provided comments to newspapers. Also in 2005, Whitmore provided an affidavit supporting a co-worker in her Equal Employment Opportunity complaint for alleged discrimination and retaliation by her managers at OSHA. Due to various medical and personal matters, Whitmore took significant leave from work. Following a number of additional incidents, he was removed from his position. The Merit Systems Protection Board upheld the termination. The Federal Circuit reversed. In analyzing whether the DOL had proven by clear and convincing evidence that Whitmore would have been removed regard-less of his whistleblowing disclosures (5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)), the MSPB excluded or ignored evidence offered by Whitmore necessary to adjudicate Whitmore’s retaliation claim, and otherwise applied the law incorrectly.

Plaintiff, a Naval Criminal Investigative Service engineer since 1984, agreed to a transfer in 2002. The transfer was delayed because of her mother’s poor health. Shortly before the transfer was to occur, she voluntarily responded to a summons to act as a grand juror. The Navy paid her while she served as a grand juror (5 U.S.C. 6322(a)), but ordered her to report to Washington year later and directed her not to seek or accept extension of her grand jury duties. She nonetheless was sworn in for a second term. The Navy declared her to be AWOL, the Merit Systems Protection Board dismissed an appeal, and she was terminated from her employment. The claims court granted summary judgment in favor of the government on pre-removal back pay claim and dismissed, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, her post- removal claims for back pay, reinstatement, and other forms of compensation. The Federal Circuit reversed in part, holding that the claims court erred in interpreting 5 U.S.C. 6322(a), which entitles a grand juror to court leave when "summoned," regardless of whether the grand juror volunteered to be summoned.

Norris was an SEC trial attorney from 1992, until he was removed in 2009. He had twice previously been disciplined for exercising poor judgment and misuse of government email. The firing was based on emails expressing political views, demeaning support staff, and sending a confidential suspicious activity report to an appointed receiver in violation of SEC policies. Norris claimed that the 2008 emails were influenced by his wife becoming fully disabled, his daughter suffering from Asperger's Disorder, and his own adult AD/HD. The union submitted the removal to arbitration. During the hearing, the arbitrator received testimony that Norris had a confrontation with agency commissioners in 2007 and that he was barred from presenting cases to commissioners in the future; Norris denied the allegation. Norris testified that his personal circumstances had improved. The arbitrator affirmed the firing. The Federal Circuit vacated, holding that the arbitrator should have considered evidence of post-removal change in circumstances to determine whether the penalty was reasonable. The court cautioned the arbitrator not to consider information not included in the notice of removal the 2007 incident).

Petitioner served 26 years in the U.S. Army. Following his discharge, he began working in a civil service position as a maintenance management specialist for the Department of the Navy. His appointment was subject to completion of a one-year probationary period. Petitioner had no previous federal civilian service. Before expiration of the probationary period, the agency notified petitioner that he would be terminated from his position for unacceptable performance. He sought to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board. The administrative judge found that petitioner had no statutory right of appeal to the Board and that, as a probationary employee, petitioner's rights before the Board were limited to those defined by OPM regulations allowing appeal only if the termination was based on partisan political reasons or was the result of discrimination based on marital status, 5 C.F.R. 315.806(b). The Board rejected petitioner's claim that his military service should count toward completion of the one-year period of continuous service needed to qualify for Board review. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that petitioner did not qualify as an employee within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 7511(a)(1)(A).

Plaintiff entered into a "Stipulation Agreement Regarding Damages," approved by the EEOC, to resolve her Title VII pregnancy discrimination claim against the U.S. Postal Service. She later filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging breached of that Agreement. The court held that it did not have jurisdiction because the Agreement was a consent decree, not a contract. In the federal system, when the United States is the defendant, whether the issue is enforcement of a court decree by the issuing forum or enforcement of a settlement contract in a separate suit determines which court can hear the case. The Federal Circuit reversed, stating that the "dispute is yet another example of the wastefulness of litigation over where to litigate." Consent decrees and settlement agreements are not necessarily mutually exclusive; a settlement agreement, even one embodied in a decree, is a contract within the meaning of the Tucker Act.

A civilian employee of the Department of Defense retired in 2007 then served as a re-employed annuitant for a two-year term ending January 3, 2009. Like many Department employees, he was subject to the National Security Personnel System, and eligible for performance-based bonuses and salary increases until the system was repealed in 2009. He qualified in 2008, but was ineligible for a salary increase because of his two-year contract; by regulation, the effective date of any salary increase would be the first day of the first pay period on or after January 1. The Department denied a bonus, arguing that the effective date was the same as the effective of a salary increase. The employee argued that the effective date should be either the end of the appraisal period (September 30, 2008) or the first day of the following year. In his class action under the Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346, the district court ruled in favor of the Department. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the court had jurisdiction under the Act and deferring to the agency's interpretation of its own regulation.

From 2000 to 2008, plaintiff worked in a permanent position as an attorney in the Department of Homeland Security. She then spent about eight months in an excepted temporary appointment as an Immigration Judge. Upon the completion of a background investigation, she started a permanent excepted appointment as an Immigration Judge. About 17 months later, the DOJ terminated her appointment based on alleged misconduct. An ALJ dismissed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. 7511(a)(1)(C)(ii). The Board denied review. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that plaintiff did not meet the statutory definition of employee as one "who has completed 2 years of current continuous service in the same or similar positions in an Executive agency under other than a temporary appointment limited to 2 years or less."

In 2009, plaintiff applied for an IT specialist position with the Miami VA Healthcare System. He did not get the job and, after exhausting rights before the Department of Labor, filed an appeal, asserting that the VA violated his rights relating to veteran's preference. The AJ concluded that the Merit Systems Protection Board had no authority to review the merits of the VA’s non-selection of plaintiff. The Board agreed. The Federal Circuit vacated. There is no way to determine whether the Veterans' Preference Act (58 Stat. 390) has been violated without examining the grounds for non-selection. The Board has jurisdiction to determine whether the VA properly afforded plaintiff the right to compete for the job and properly determined, in accordance with 5 C.F.R. § 302.302(d), that he was not qualified for the position

Plaintiff alleged infringement of patents covering systems and devices for testing blood samples against a competitor in the diagnostic field. The patents at issue name defendant as the assignee. Plaintiff claimed ownership based on confidentiality and non-competition clauses in employment and consulting contracts between its predecessor and an employee, the inventor. The district court dismissed, finding that plaintiff lacked standing because the 1999 Consulting Agreement did not continue the 1984 Agreement’s Disclosure and Assignment Covenant. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the company lacked standing with respect to rights assigned long after the inventor resigned from the company.

Plaintiff is a veteran with a service-connected disability rated at 80 percent, which makes him a "preference eligible" veteran, 5 U.S.C. 2108(3)(C). He applied for attorney positions at the Social Security Administration and at the U.S. Attorney's Office, informing both that he was a preference eligible veteran. Both agencies selected other applicants, at least one of whom was not preference eligible. He filed complaints with the Department of Labor. The agencies concluded that 5 U.S.C. 3320 did not apply to require that agencies "file written reasons" and receive permission from the Office of Personnel Management if they pass over a preference eligible who is among the highest three eligibles available for appointment on a certificate furnished by OPM. The Board agreed that attorneys are exempt from any examination or rating requirements. The Federal Circuit affirmed. The Board properly concluding that the agencies were exempt from the procedures and were not required to file written reasons with OPM and seek permission before selecting other candidates.