MSPB Reverses Five-Year Enforced Leave Suspension

Although the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or Board) is currently suffering from a lack of quorum and resulting inability to issue new decisions (Read the Press Release about the lack of quorum Here), the Board appears to have been very busy during the holiday season issuing decisions prior to the departure of MSPB Chairman Susan Tsui Grundmann.

In one Nonprecedential Final Order from the Board, issued December 20, 2016, the MSPB reversed the enforced leave suspension of a postal employee who had been placed in an enforced leave suspension status nearly five (5) years earlier. The Appellant, represented by Bonney, Allenberg, & O’Reilly, P.C. for the entire five (5) year process, had been placed on enforced leave and effectively prohibited from working starting at the beginning of 2012. The Agency’s argument for placing the employee on enforced leave was because the Agency believed the employee’s medical restrictions did not permit her to work any more than six (6) hours per day.

The employee filed an appeal to the MSPB Washington Regional Office in 2012 based on her placement on enforced leave, but the appeal was dismissed by an Administrative Judge for lack of jurisdiction. After further appeal (called a “Petition for Review”) to the full Board, the MSPB issued a decision remanding the appeal back to the Washington Regional Office and finding that the employee’s placement on enforced leave constituted a suspension status over which the MSPB had jurisdiction. Abbott v. U.S. Postal Service, 121 MSPR 294 (2014). This decision was discussed in a Prior Blog Post.

On remand, the Administrative Judge affirmed the Agency’s suspension action, and a second Petition for Review was filed with the MSPB. Finally, after nearly five (5) years of litigation, the Board agreed that the Agency’s placement of the employee on enforced leave was not supported by the evidence. While the Agency had argued that the employee’s medical restrictions did not permit her to work an 8-hour day, the Board pointed out that the Agency disregarded information from the employee’s doctor to the contrary. The MSPB therefore reversed the enforced leave suspension action “because the agency did not prove by preponderant evidence that the appellant could only work a 6-hour day.” Abbott v. U.S. Postal Service, DC-0752-12-0366-B-1 (Nonprecedential), at ¶19. Read the Full Final Order Here.

If you feel you have been subjected to an unwarranted personnel action and would like to discuss your situation with an attorney, please call the law firm of Bonney, Allenberg, & O’Reilly, P.C. to set up an initial consultation with one of our attorneys. CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE, AND CASE RESULTS FROM ONE CASE DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT A SIMILAR RESULT IN ANY FUTURE CASE. 

Reasonable Accommodation in the Workplace

The phrase “reasonable accommodation” tends to be something many employees have heard before, but its meaning is not always clear.

Reasonable accommodation requests can arise in two different types of situations: (1) When an employee or job applicant suffers from a physical or mental disability and requires certain adjustments to the work environment to accommodate that disability; or (2) When an employee or job applicant’s sincerely-held religious beliefs and/or practice require an adjustment to certain working conditions in order to accommodate the individual’s religious beliefs and/or practice.

In disability cases, the employer is permitted to ask questions and seek supporting medical documentation to clarify the individual’s disabling medical condition and the requested reasonable accommodation. This is part of the interactive process, which an employer is required to partake in upon receiving a reasonable accommodation request. If the employee or applicant fails or refuses to provide the requested medical information, it is easier for the employer to deny the accommodation request without fear of negative repercussions. Therefore, if a certain type of accommodation is needed in order for the employee or applicant to be able to accomplish the essential functions of his or her job, it is very important to provide the employer with the medical information requested, so long as the medical information sought by the employer is reasonably connected to the particular disability and accommodation request in question.

Religious accommodation cases are slightly different, as the EEOC generally recommends that because the definition of religion is so broad, employers should ordinarily assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is based on a sincerely held religious belief. EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 12: Religious Discrimination ( The interactive process in religious accommodation cases therefore tends to be less cumbersome than in disability accommodation cases. However, if the individual seeking the accommodation has behaved in a way that is markedly inconsistent with his or her professed religious belief, or if the particular accommodation sought appears to be beneficial to the individual for purely secular reasons, this might give rise to the employer questioning whether the individual really holds the professed sincerely-held religious belief and whether the requested religious accommodation is truly necessary.

Once the employee or applicant establishes that an accommodation is necessary for him or her to be able to carry out the essential functions of the position, the employer will typically only be allowed to completely deny providing reasonable accommodation where the reasonable accommodation will cause an undue burden to the employer. Assessing whether an accommodation is unduly burdensome typically becomes an economic question, and the EEOC will explore how costly the accommodation would be to the employer in reaching a conclusion as to whether or not the denied accommodation was unduly burdensome.

One area of contention in reasonable accommodation cases tends to be the type of accommodation ultimately granted to an employee or applicant. While qualified individuals have the right to request and secure reasonable accommodation so long as it is not an undue burden to the employer, oftentimes the reasonable accommodation granted to an employee is not necessarily the same accommodation that was requested by the employee. For instance, a disabled employee who seeks telework as a reasonable accommodation to accommodate a disability that affects his ability to drive might be alternatively granted an accommodation whereby the employer allows him a flexible starting and/or ending time for work that coincides with public transit or available carpool schedules. Similarly, if an employee whose position requires her to be on-call on weekends seeks a religious accommodation that permits her to have every Sunday off for religious service, but the religious service she attends is over by 1:00 p.m., she may be granted an accommodation whereby she is not on call for the specific period of time in which she attends religious services rather than for the entire day.

The EEOC’s website contains a significant amount of guidance regarding reasonable accommodations for disabilities and for religious reasons. For example, see EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 12: Religious Discrimination (, and the EEOC website’s overview of Disability Discrimination ( Additionally, the Job Accommodation Network (JAN) ( can be a terrific resource for employees with disabilities to explore and discover potential accommodations that may help them to be able to accomplish their essential job functions.

If you are seeking or have been denied a reasonable accommodation from the federal government and would like to discuss your situation with an attorney, please call the law firm of Bonney, Allenberg, & O’Reilly, P.C. to set up an initial consultation with one of our attorneys.

Administrative v. Criminal Investigations

The question is when is an investigation purely administrative and when is it a criminal investigation. Most federal employees are aware that they must participate in agency investigations whether they want to or not. Most federal employees also know they have a constitutional right not to self-incriminate. The problem is knowing when is an administrative investigation only administrative and when does it become a criminal investigation.

An interview may start out as an administrative interview then change into a criminal interview. Another possibility is that during an administrative interview, facts may be disclosed which will later be used to conduct a criminal investigation. The possibilities and situations are virtually unlimited. Therefore the first and most important thing to do is ask for a Union Representative.

Let’s look at a scenario as it unfolds to show the dangers of a simple administrative investigation. Someone other than a bargaining unit employee, say a contractor, was seen allegedly stealing something and the agency wants to find out if the bargaining unit employee (BUE) saw anything. The BUE is questioned and says no, he didn’t see anything because he was working with Joe Blow over in Building C that day. Come to find out, Joe Blow says he was not with him that day. Now the employee has possibly submitted a false statement, and may also be charged with being off of the job site without permission. The investigator/officer may also jump to the conclusion that since the employee lied about his whereabouts, maybe he was involved in the theft with the contractor. The employee is then brought in for further questioning and it turns out the employee wasn’t at work at all that day but falsified his time card. He now has the above charge of submitting a false statement and falsifying his time card. So a case which started out as having nothing to do with the employee now leads to a proposed removal. By the way, fraud against the United States (submitting false attendance cards and receiving funds) can then be criminally prosecuted. Wow! That went from nothing, to a removal and criminal prosecution in a flash.

So what to do? First, call a Union Representative. The Union Representative can help you recognize potential problems and/or issues.

Second, ask the reason for the interview.

Third, ask if it is a criminal interview. If they say no, don’t take their word for it. If they give you a statement that says it is only administrative, ask them for an agreement of immunity from the U. S. Attorney’s Office. After all, only the U. S. Attorney can provide you immunity.

Finally, don’t talk too much and think about your answer. It is perfectly acceptable to say you do not remember rather than risk giving incorrect information.

Grievance Arbitration vs. EEOC Complaints

The heart and soul of labor unions is the collective bargaining agreement. What makes the collective bargaining agreement so valuable is binding arbitration. So why is it that unions are sending their cases over to the EEOC for processing? Two reasons: (1) it is easier to drop a case on the EEOC for them to handle rather than to do it themselves; and (2) money. The first reason is self-explanatory. The employee is sent over to EEO and the union representative essentially washes his hands of the case or at least no longer must worry about the processing of the action. The second reason, money, is quite simple – arbitration costs money and the EEOC complaint process is free. But are unions really doing right by their membership? I estimate that as many as one-half of the EEOC cases filed are really grievances in disguise. Interestingly enough, another 25% percent could have probably been effectively brought as grievances. The question is, which is more effective? I estimate our success rate in arbitration cases hovers around 70%. Why shouldn’t it, with an independent third party hearing the cases you have selected to proceed on to arbitration. Whereas national statistics for cases going to a decision by the EEOC reflect a success rate of only about 5-6%. Although we tend to do better than the national average, the success rate in proceeding through the EEOC is nowhere near that of arbitration. Add to the disparity between success at arbitration compared to EEOC and the fact that EEOC is now taking 2-3 years to get a decision, and a person must wonder why EEOC is ever chosen over grievances. Unions need to take a hard look at how they are doing business. Do they go slow, cheap and unsuccessful (through EEOC) or do they want to put their members’ dues to work through arbitration and be much more successful?

Proposed Disciplinary Action Proceedings in Federal Employment

 Sometimes, a federal government employee will find himself or herself in the unfortunate situation of receiving a proposed disciplinary action. For most tenured civil service employees, no discipline affecting the employee’s pay may be issued without first providing the employee with notice of a proposed disciplinary action and an opportunity to respond to the proposal.

The law firm of Bonney, Allenberg & O’Reilly regularly represents individuals in replying to proposed disciplinary actions. If you are issued a proposed disciplinary action and would like to consult with an attorney, you should schedule a legal consultation immediately, as most proposed disciplinary actions set out a very short reply period.

Most proposed disciplinary actions also provide information about who to contact to request an extension for purposes of replying to the proposal, and who to contact to request documentation relied upon in proposing disciplinary action. Employees faced with proposed disciplinary actions should always request all of the materials being relied upon in the disciplinary proceeding, although if you are represented by counsel, this is something to discuss with your attorney. In order to be able to fully reply to the proposal, you should have access to all of the information being used against you. While this may seem like common sense, all too often, employees do not exercise the full extent of their rights, and either do not reply at all to the proposal, or do not request to review the materials being relied upon for the proposed disciplinary action.

Just because a certain type of disciplinary action is proposed does not necessarily mean that particular disciplinary action will be imposed. The employee’s right to reply is a very important component of the disciplinary process in federal employment. It should be taken very seriously both by the employee replying to the proposed discipline and by the deciding official who will ultimately make a decision as to what, if any, disciplinary action will be imposed.

A decision on the proposed disciplinary action is typically issued in writing and mailed, e-mailed, or hand-delivered directly to the employee. If the decision being issued upholds the charge and imposes disciplinary action, the decision letter should provide notice to the employee of his or her appeal and/or grievance rights.

Every case is different, and for most people in their probationary periods, the employing Agency is not usually required to issue a proposal and offer the employee the opportunity to respond. Additionally, the Agency’s requirements tend to be different for Non-Appropriated Fund (NAF) employees, whose employment status does not normally entitle them to an appeal before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) in the event they are faced with a major adverse action.

If you have received a proposed disciplinary action and would like to discuss your situation with an attorney, please call the law firm of Bonney, Allenberg, & O’Reilly, P.C. to set up an initial consultation with one of our attorneys.


The Merit Systems Protection Board

The Merit Systems Protection Board, commonly referred to as the MSPB, was created by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 to replace the old Civil Service Commission.  The Merit Systems Protection Board is a quasi-judicial agency that hears appeals of federal employees who have been removed, demoted, or suspended for more than fourteen (14) days.  The mission of the Merit Systems Protection Board is to protect merit principles and promote an effective federal workforce free of prohibited personnel practices.

If you have questions about the Merit Systems Protection Board or need representation, please call the law firm of Bonney, Allenberg, & O’Reilly, P.C. to schedule an initial consultation with one of our attorneys.  Our firm has been servicing federal employees for more than thirty (30) years.

Arbitration Award for Air Reserve Technician (ART) Bargaining Unit Employees of NAIL Local 7

In National Association of Independent Labor (NAIL), Local 7 and U.S. Department of the Air Force, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina, FMCS No. 16-51813 (August 11, 2016), the National Association of Independent Labor (NAIL), represented at arbitration by Bonney, Allenberg & O’Reilly, P.C., received an arbitration award that prevents the Air Force from requiring that Air Reserve Technicians (ARTs) wear their military uniforms while in civilian employment status.  The arbitration decision found the Air Force’s requirement that the ARTs wear their military uniforms while in civilian employment status to be contrary to 10 U.S.C. Section 772.  Arbitrator Ellen Saltzman wrote, in part, that the Agency was to “immediately cease and desist requiring ARTs to wear a military uniform while working in their civilian job.”  The full text of the arbitration award can be read by clicking on the following link: NAIL, Local 7 and U.S. Dep’t of Air Force, 4th Fighter Wing, SJAFB, FMCS No. 16-51813 (August 11, 2016).

If you are a federal government employee in need of legal representation and would like to discuss your situation with an attorney from our office, please call the law firm of Bonney, Allenberg & O’Reilly, P.C. to set up an initial consultation with one of our attorneys.  CASE RESULTS DEPEND UPON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE, AND CASE RESULTS FROM ONE CASE DO NOT GUARANTEE OR PREDICT A SIMILAR RESULT IN ANY FUTURE CASE. 

Retaliatory Reassignments: Where an employee is involuntarily moved or reassigned because he or she engaged in protected EEO activity, the Agency’s action may be viewed as retaliation.

Many federal government employees who have engaged in the EEO process know all too well that EEO activity may be received negatively by their chain of command. Most federal government employees who engage in the EEO process are also aware that they have the right to file an EEO complaint based on retaliation in the event they feel their management has taken a materially adverse action against them because of their EEO activity. One form of retaliation may be an involuntary reassignment to a different position, schedule, or work location. When reassigning an employee who has engaged in protected EEO activity, managers will often use the rationale that they are reassigning the employee away from whatever co-worker or supervisor was named in the employee’s EEO complaint as a way of “protecting” that employee. In reality, these types of involuntary reassignments may be viewed as punitive in nature, especially where the employee who engaged in EEO activity is moved to a less desirable work location or given less desirable duties.

Even if an Agency claims that a reassignment of an employee is intended to protect the employee rather than retaliate against the employee for having filed an EEO complaint, the involuntarily reassigned employee may have a viable EEO complaint that the reassignment was actually based on retaliation for the employee’s protected EEO activity. In Moore v. Department of Education, EEOC Appeal No. 0120111258 (August 15, 2013), the Complainant was detailed to an undesirable work assignment after filing an EEO complaint alleging, in part, sexual harassment. The Complainant’s third-level supervisor stated that after being informed of the EEO complaint, the Complainant was reassigned to “protect her” in the event her allegations of sexual harassment proved to be true. The EEOC found that detailing Complainant was not appropriate corrective action for the sexual harassment she suffered, explaining “that a complainant should not be involuntarily transferred or otherwise burdened, because such measures could constitute unlawful retaliation.” The EEOC concluded that the Complainant’s transfer in that particular case “was due to retaliation for Complainant’s claims of sexual harassment.”

Similarly, in Abrigo v. Department of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 0120064230 (September 15, 2008) (which was cited in the Moore decision), the Agency changed the Complainant’s schedule “to protect” her while investigating her sexual harassment claims. Even though the EEOC affirmed a finding of no discrimination as to the sexual harassment claims, the EEOC found that the subsequent schedule change was retaliatory. The EEOC concluded that the Agency failed to articulate a legitimate nondiscriminatory rationale for the schedule change, holding “that the undisputed record supports the finding that the agency engaged in reprisal toward complainant on the basis of her prior protected EEO activity when it changed her schedule.”

If you feel you have been subjected to retaliation for engaging in protected EEO activity and would like to discuss your situation with an attorney, please call the law firm of Bonney, Allenberg, & O’Reilly, P.C. to set up an initial consultation with one of our attorneys.

A Suspension By Another Name Is Still A Suspension

Sometimes, federal agencies will place an employee out of work without pay against the will of the employee. This happens primarily in situations where the employee has been suspended from work for any host of reasons, usually involving some finding of misconduct by the employer. In the federal government, most civil service employees cannot be suspended unless and until they are provided with due process – namely, written notice of a proposed disciplinary action and an opportunity to respond orally and in writing to that proposed disciplinary action.

However, in some circumstances, the employing agency will effectively suspend an employee by placing him or her out of work without pay, but will not call the action a “suspension.” When an Agency makes an employee choose between using her paid leave or being carried in a Leave Without Pay (LWOP) or Absent Without Leave (AWOL) status, it is called “enforced leave.”

In Pittman v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 832 F.2d 598 (Fed. Cir. 1987), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that an agency placing an employee on enforced leave due to a medical condition constituted an appealable suspension of more than fourteen (14) days. More recently, in Abbott v. U.S. Postal Service, 121 MSPR 294 (2014), the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) confirmed the longstanding ruling from Pittman that an agency’s placement of an employee on enforced leave for more than 14 days constitutes a suspension that can be appealed to the MSPB.

Even more recently, in Martin v. U.S. Postal Service, 2016 MSPB 6 (2016), the Postal Service placed an employee in a Leave Without Pay (LWOP) status without her consent for a retroactive period of time, which the MSPB found to be an appealable suspension action. Because the Agency had never given the employee notice of a proposed suspension and an opportunity to respond, the MSPB reversed the LWOP status entirely by finding that the Agency suspended the employee without due process.

In cases like Abbott and Martin, the employing agency did not necessarily refer to the employment actions it took against those employees as being “suspensions,” but the MSPB still found that the Agency had effectively suspended the employees, requiring the Agency to carry the same burden of proof and provide the same due process guarantees as are required in any other suspension of greater than 14 days. (Suspensions for 14 days or less are typically not appealable to the MSPB.)

If you have been involuntarily placed out of work without pay and would like to discuss your situation with an attorney, please call the law firm of Bonney, Allenberg, & O’Reilly, P.C. to set up an initial consultation with one of our attorneys.

EEO Investigations, Part 2 of 2: Think About the End Before You Amend When it Comes to EEO Complaints

Any time a federal government worker is thinking about filing an EEO complaint, some of the most significant considerations involve the potential relief or remedy you could receive if you are successful in your EEO complaint.  Two of the most important questions to ask yourself are: (1) What do I want to happen as a result of my EEO complaint? and (2) What relief am I likely to get if I succeed in my EEO complaint?  An attorney specializing in federal employment law can likely assist with the second question, but only you can answer the first question.  If you have already become involved in the EEO complaint process and are considering filing an amendment to your EEO complaint based on subsequent discrimination against you, it is important to once again consider these two questions.

When trapped in a difficult work environment, it may seem like second nature for a federal employee to pick up the phone and call the EEO office whenever a possible discriminatory act is taken against them.  Federal employees certainly have the right to file EEO complaints when they feel that have been subjected to unlawful discrimination, and the EEOC takes the prohibition against reprisal for engaging in EEO activity very seriously.  However, it is important to consider your ultimate potential relief for each issue prior to amending an existing EEO complaint.

Within the federal government, EEO contact must be made within 45 calendar days of the discriminatory action, even if you already have an ongoing EEO complaint as to a previous matter.  If you have previously initiated EEO contact based on discrimination, and a subsequent discriminatory action is taken against you, you have the right to seek to amend your EEO complaint to include the subsequent discriminatory action.

In some cases, the employee is left with virtually no choice but to amend his or her EEO complaint.  As an example: an employee files an EEO complaint based on a discriminatory performance appraisal, and, while her EEO complaint is being investigated, she is subsequently reassigned to undesirable duties outside of her position description. If the employee (the “complainant”) amends her EEO complaint to include the issue of being tasked with undesirable duties, she will be able to request to have the reassignment canceled or reversed as potential relief through a successful EEO complaint.  By amending her complaint during the investigation stage, the complainant typically implicitly agrees to extend the timeframe to have her EEO complaint investigated.  Normally, the Agency is allowed 180 days after the date of the Complainant’s formal complaint of discrimination to investigate the complaint (see Part 1 for a discussion of the 180-day investigation timeframe).  However, if a Complainant amends her complaint, the Agency is typically afforded an additional 180 days after the date of the amendment to complete its investigation.  Specifically, when an amendment is filed, the Agency is required to complete the investigation within the earlier of 180 days after the filing of the last amendment or not later than 360 days after the filing of the original formal complaint of discrimination.  Amendments can therefore lead to delays in the EEO process by allowing the Agency more time to investigate.

For some people and in some situations, being able to amend their EEO complaints to include a subsequent discriminatory action is worth the extended investigation period.  In the example of the complainant who was subjected to the undesirable reassignment, if she did not amend her EEO complaint, she would not have the right to seek a reversal of the reassignment as part of her relief through the EEO process.  However, in a case where the subsequent discriminatory actions are not as egregious, there may be limited additional relief that can be awarded, or no additional relief at all, if the EEO complaint is amended.  It is therefore important to think seriously about what your additional relief may be when deciding whether to amend your EEO complaint to include a new issue.  If your ultimate decision is to amend your EEO complaint based on a new discriminatory incident, make sure to file the amendment within 45 calendar days of that new discriminatory incident.

If you are engaged in EEO activity, are considering filing an EEO complaint, or are considering filing an amendment to an existing EEO complaint and would like to discuss your situation with an attorney, please call the law firm of Bonney, Allenberg, & O’Reilly, P.C. to set up an initial consultation with one of our attorneys.