P  E  R  M  E  R  I  C  A  .  C O M


big maybellle

patsy cline

linda jones

maxine brown

dinah washington

♦       Nov 25, 2020  .. FLRA:  VA v. AFGE  ..  With this case, we further address the outer limits of a negotiated grievance procedure.     Specifically at issue in this case is whether a Union can seek reimbursement from the Agency for expenses the Union incurred as a result of its contract with a third party for hotel accommodations and catering in conjunction with a three-day training for Union stewards.     Because the complaint does not constitute a grievance under § 7103(a)(9) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (Statute), we find that the Union’s search for reimbursement cannot be the subject of a grievance or subsequent arbitral award.     Accordingly, we vacate the award.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 25, 2020  .. FLRA:  AFGE v. VA  ..  The grievants are physicians – Title 38 health care professionals under the U.S. Code, subject to unique federal employee rules and requirements – at one of the Agency’s hospitals.     In this case, we hold that a grievance disputing the Agency’s process of scheduling Title 38 physicians to perform patient care duties on weekends is excluded from the negotiated grievance procedure pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7422(b).     Arbitrator Jerome A. Diekemper found that the Agency violated the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) and other Agency directives by scheduling the grievants to work on weekends and in excess of forty-hours per week. For the reasons discussed below, we find that the grievance is non-arbitrable. We set aside the award.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 25, 2020  .. 11th Cir.:    Lewis v. BlueBird  ..  Lewis, an African-American male, was hired as a maintenance technician at Blue Bird in June 2015.1 In January 2016, Lewis filed a complaint with the EEOC for discrimination; he amended the complaint to add claims of retaliation in August 2016. He was terminated from Blue Bird in September 2016. Lewis filed a third EEOC charge in November 2016. Lewis subsequently filed the present suit against Blue Bird, alleging race discrimination and retaliation. He alleged that he was subjected to a hostile work environment where racial comments were made, he was not promoted for retaliatory reasons, and he was treated differently because of his race. Lewis also alleged that Blue Bird terminated his employment as retaliation for his August 2016 EEOC charge.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       BREAKING NEWS : The US General Services Administration has told president-elect Joe Bidden the transition of power can formally begin.

♦       Nov 24, 2020  .. FLRA:  AFGE v. VA  ..  The dispute in this case arose during the parties’ negotiations over a successor term agreement. The first proposal at issue concerns fitness for duty examinations (Article 19). The second proposal concerns official time (Article 48).     These cases are before the Authority on negotiability appeals filed by the Union under § 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute).     The appeals each involve the negotiability of one proposal.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 24, 2020  .. 7th Cir.:    Vargas v. DeJoy (Postal)  ..  Jose Vargas, a mail carrier for the U.S. Postal Service, aggravated an old foot injury on the job in early 2011.     He was placed on work restrictions that prohibited him from lifting and carrying heavy weights. This created a problem for Vargas because his duties included carrying heavy loads and packages.     Vargas asked his employer for accommodations, but without any alternative jobs for him to do, his request was denied. As a result, Vargas had to take paid sick leave for several weeks and eventually went on leave without pay.     Vargas sued his employer under Title VII and for disability-based discrimination. Apparently, his endgame is to restore the paid sick leave hours he took.  ..  DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 24, 2020  .. 6th Cir:    Solomon v. CARite  ..  Plaintiff DeAngela Solomon filed this lawsuit against her former employer, CARite Corporate, LLC, former supervisor, Eugene Hughey, and former coworker, Angela Barnes. She claims that Hughey subjected her to a hostile work environment and sexually harassed her in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and in violation of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. She also claims that Barnes defamed her to other CARite employees, including Hughey.     Solomon began working for CARite in September 2015. In June 2016, she was transferred to CARite’s Taylor, Michigan location, upon the recommendation of her supervisor, Hughey, who transferred to that facility as well. After the transfer, Hughey allegedly began behaving in an inappropriate manner, including discussing the intimate lives and physical attributes of female coworkers.     Barnes allegedly participated in such conversations, telling coworkers that Solomon was promiscuous and had plastic surgery to enhance her appearance.     Solomon also states that on July 11, 2018, Hughey made a particularly lewd, sexually suggestive remark to her in front of coworkers, at which point her experience at CARite “completely soured.” Solomon resigned in August 2018.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 23, 2020  .. Ain't Got No New Cases Today : Sorry.

♦       Nov 20, 2020  .. 7th Cir.:    Presti v. Wolf (Homeland)  ..  Plaintif, an immigration officer at the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, believes that she was demoted and given negative feedback on her job performance based on her Italian descent and in retaliation for complaints she had filed with the EEOC.     She sued the Secretary of Homeland Security under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 20, 2020  .. FLRA:  U.S. Park Police  v. F.O.P  ..  The Agency began consistently enforcing an existing policy requiring its law-enforcement officers to pay for traffic and parking fines that they incur while operating Agency vehicles. The Agency asserted that it had to enforce the policy to comply with applicable government-wide regulations.     The Union – claiming that the parties had established a past practice of not holding officers personally responsible for traffic and parking fines – filed a grievance alleging that the Agency did not provide it with notice and an opportunity to bargain before enforcing the policy. Arbitrator Homer C. La Rue issued an award finding that the parties had a past practice of not enforcing the policy and that the Agency violated the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement by failing to bargain with the Union before changing that practice.     The question before us is whether the award is contrary to law.     We find that any past practice of not enforcing the traffic-and-parking-fines policy was contrary to the General Services Administration’s (GSA’s) Motor Vehicle Management regulations (the motor-vehicle regulations).     Therefore, the Agency was not required to engage in pre-implementation bargaining before discontinuing that unlawful practice, and the Agency did not violate the parties’ agreement.     Accordingly, we find that the Arbitrator erred as a matter of law, and we set aside the award.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 19, 2020  .. D.D.C.:    Werwie v. Mulvaney  ..  Plaintiff, Werwie, works as a contract specialist for the Defense Logistics Agency.      Due to a congenital condition, Werwie has been legally blind since birth.      Werwie brings this suit against Russell Vought, in his official capacity as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and Emily W. Murphy, in her official capacity as the Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA).      Werwie claims that the defendants violated § 508 of the Rehabilitation Act by procuring and using noncompliant online assessment programs to evaluate federal employees who applied for a cybersecurity training program.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 19, 2020  .. 4th Cir.:    Elledge v. Lowe's  ..  In the aftermath of knee surgery, Chuck Elledge parted ways with his long-term employer Lowe’s Home Center. The separation was not amicable. Soon thereafter, Elledge sued Lowe’s for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), claiming that Lowe’s had forced him out of his director-level job even though, with reasonable accommodations, he could still perform its essential functions. He also claimed that Lowe’s violated the ADA when it refused to reassign him to another director-level position. Finally, Elledge alleged discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 19, 2020  .. 5th Cir.:    Foster v. Ferrellgas  ..  Foster, who alleges that she suffered racial discrimination as a black woman, was hired in December 2014 as a Crude Logistics Scheduler in the Midland, Texas office of Bridger Administrative Services, LLC (“Bridger”), an oilfield hauler. As a Crude Logistics Scheduler, Foster used a computer system to schedule and dispatch trucks. Several months into Foster’s tenure, Bridger was acquired by Ferrellgas, a propane distributor and retailer. At that time, Foster was hired by Ferrellgas with no meaningful change in her job functions.     Prior to receiving her job offer from Bridger, Foster interviewed with Thomas Glenn, the Regional Operations Manager for the Midland office. Foster alleges that at the interview, Glenn told her that her starting salary would be $50,000 per year, but that within thirty days her salary would increase to $65,000 per year. Yet after thirty days had gone by, Foster still had not received her promised raise. When she complained to Glenn, he told her he would get back to her.     Glenn was eventually fired and replaced by Lyle Lowrance. Foster complained repeatedly to Lowrance about her missing raise, but to no avail. In her deposition, Foster testified that Lowrance advised her that she was not getting the raise because she was black.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 19, 2020  .. 5th Cir.:    Jones v. Lubbock  ..  Plaintiff Ricky Jones sued his former employer, Lubbock County Hospital District, doing business as University Medical Center (“UMC”), for two alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”)      He claimed UMC denied him a reasonable accommodation for his breathing disability, then fired him because of that disability.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 18, 2020  .. FLRA:  DOD v. OFOT  ..  This case was filed by the Department of Defense Education Activity – Europe South District (DoDEA or Agency), and concerns the negotiations of ground rules over the Successor Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the Agency and the Overseas Federation of Teachers (Union). DoDEA is the umbrella organization that unites efforts to provide quality educational opportunities and services to military dependents around the globe. DoDEA plans, directs, coordinates, and manages the education programs for Department of Defense (DoD) dependents who would otherwise not have access to a high-quality public education.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 18, 2020  .. FLRA:  Homeland v. NTEU  ..  The mission of the FLETC is to provide training on firearms, driving, tactics, and investigations to law enforcement professionals to help them fulfill their responsibilities safely and proficiently.     The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (Agency or FLETC) in Glynco, Georgia filed the instant request for assistance with the Federal Service Impasses Panel (Panel) under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (Statute), 5 U.S.C. § 7119, concerning a dispute from negotiations over two articles related to the grievance procedure and merit promotions in a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA).  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 17, 2020  .. DOJ OIG INVESTIGATIONS :    The Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) initiated this investigation upon the receipt of information from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) alleging that an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) may have physically and verbally sexually harassed an Intern in the United States Attorney’s Office (USAO), including deliberately running his arm across the Intern’s breast without her consent.   report summary

♦       Nov 17, 2020  .. FSIP:  VA  v. AFGE  ..  The Arbitrator issued an award finding that the Agency violated the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) when it ceased providing a ninety-day performance improvement plan (PIP) as a prerequisite for performance-based actions. As a remedy, the Arbitrator directed the Agency to rescind any adverse actions taken against bargaining-unit employees, including the reinstatement of any removed employees, who did not first receive a ninety‑day PIP.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 17, 2020  .. D.D.C.:    Elam v. Rooftopdc  ..  Over two years ago, Plaintiffs Elam and Price brought this suit alleging that their termination as kitchen workers at a local restaurant run by Defendants was motivated by discrimination on the basis of their race.  ..  DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 16, 2020  .. D.D.C.:    Schonzeit v. Zinke (Interior)  ..  According to the original Complaint here, Schonzeit is a Chief Ranger of the United Sates National Parks Service (NPS) in Philadelphia.     In late 2017, she applied but was not selected for the position of “Regional Chief Ranger of the National Capitol Region.”     She alleged that this decision violated Title VII, as it was based on her sex and was in retaliation for complaints she had made regarding an earlier non-selection.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 16, 2020  .. 5th Cir.:    Carrizal v. Brennan (Postal)  ..  Ms. Carrizal alleges that she experienced unlawful employment discrimination and retaliation, including sexual harassment, during her employment with the United States Postal Service.     She filed an Equal Employment Opportunity claim with the Postal Service.     An administrative law judge granted summary judgment to the Postal Service.     On July 19, 2018, the Postal Service mailed Ms. Carrizal a Notice of Final Action implementing the administrative law judge’s grant of summary judgment.     Ms. Carrizal’s counsel states that the NFA was mailed to counsel’s previous address, despite counsel having filed a change of address.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 16, 2020  .. FSIP:  ARMY v. AFGE  ..  This case, filed by the Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Houston, Texas (Agency or Management), concerns the successor Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the U.S. Army and the AFGE, Local 1004 (Union).     By email, dated June 17, 2019, the Agency requested to reopen the CBA. The current CBA contains 41 articles, and 2 appendices. The parties were able to reach agreement on 12 articles before negotiations even began. The parties exchanged actual proposals beginning on April 10, 2020. The parties began negotiations in May 2020. Negotiations ended on June 12, 2020. The parties mediated with the assistance of an FMCS mediator. The Mediator released the parties on July 23, 2020. On July 23, 2020 and July 28, 2020, after being released by the Mediator, the Agency communicated with the Union regarding the next steps in the bargaining process, including the filing for Panel assistance.     On July 28, 2020 and July 31, 2020, the Union filed ULP complaints over bargaining concerns.     The Agency filed the request for FSIP assistance on July 30, 2020; the Union received its copy on July 31, 2020.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 13, 2020  .. FLRA:    Education v. AFGE  ..  This case reiterates the basic principle that parties are bound by the terms of a negotiated agreement throughout its term and any changes are subject to its terms and the bargaining requirements of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (Statute).     The Union grieved the Agency’s implementation of a new telework policy that limits employees to two days of telework per week. Arbitrator Ellen S. Saltzman found that the Agency violated the parties’ agreement and the Statute when it unilaterally implemented the new policy without affording the Union an opportunity for pre‑decisional involvement, as required by the parties’ agreement, and without giving the Union notice and an opportunity to bargain over implementation of the new policy.     The Agency argues that the Arbitrator’s procedural-arbitrability determination fails to draw its essence from the parties’ agreement and challenges the merits of the award on several grounds.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 12, 2020  .. A.F.C.C.A:   U.S. v. Crump  ..  THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. ..  Ms.Airmen MM first met Airmen Appellant in May 2017 while hanging out at the dormitory where both lived. Later, Airmen MM saw Appellant off-base when both were getting tattoos. At this point, the two exchanged phone numbers and then started texting each other and communicating over the social media application Snapchat.     At first, the two were only friends, but over time they had consensual sexual intercourse—sometimes in his dormitory room and sometimes in hers.     While there was general agreement that the prior sexual encounters occurred, Appellant and Airmen MM disagreed on the specifics.     Most notably, they disagreed about whether Appellant had been allowed to slap Airmen MM on her face or on her buttocks during sexual intercourse.     Ms. Airmen MM recalled Appellant weakly slapping her buttocks while they were having intercourse on two separate occasions.     On the first occasion the slap was at her request.    Afterwards, Ms. Airmen MM joked with Appellant that he “hit like a bitch” because he hit her softly and the two laughed about it.     Airmen MM testified that Appellant slapped her buttocks one other time while they were having intercourse, even though she did not request it, but she was “okay” with him doing it. .  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 12, 2020  .. FLRA:    AFGE v. Air Force  ..  This matter is before the Authority on exception to an award of Arbitrator Philip A. LaPorte filed by the Union under § 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor‑Management Relations Statute (the Statute)[1] and part 2425 of the Authority’s Regulations.[2] The Agency filed an opposition to the Union’s exception.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 12, 2020  .. Fed. Cir.:    Hairston v. Defense  ..  Hairston was employed as a Medical Records Technician at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, a medical treatment facility under the authority of the Department of Defense, in Bethesda, Maryland. Final Decision, 2020 MSPB LEXIS 456, at *1. .     On or around February 8, 2019, a routine audit and cybersecurity service-provider monitoring process determined that Hairston used his government computer to access his personal social media account and converse with individuals about purchasing and using illegal drugs, engage in sexually explicit conversations, and view inappropriate pictures of others.     On September 12, 2019, the agency issued Hairston a notice of proposed removal on two charges, “Misuse of Government Property (For Other Than Official Purposes)” and “Conduct Unbecoming a Federal Employee (Immoral, In- decent or Disgraceful Conduct).”  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 9, 2020  .. Fed. Cir.:    Page v. MSPB (VA)  ..  Mr. Page served as a medical technician for the Depart- ment of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) at the Audie L. Murphy Memorial Veterans Hospital in San Antonio, Texas. During his employment, in July 2019, the VA proposed removing Mr. Page for failure to follow supervisory instructions and for absence without leave. One month later, Mr. Page was removed, effective August 28, 2019.     The VA served its decision letter on Mr. Page via both United Parcel Service (“UPS”) overnight delivery and United States Postal Service (“USPS”) certified mail. 3. The decision letter informed Mr. Page that he could appeal the VA’s decision to the Merit System Protection Board (“MSPB” or “Board”) no later than 10 business days from the date of his removal.     On October 3, 2019, Mr. Page filed an appeal with the MSPB’s Dallas Regional Office.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 9, 2020  .. 4th Cir.:    Squires v. MSPB  ..  Mr. Squires appeals the district court’s order affirming the final decision of the MSPB and dismissing without prejudice his disability discrimination claims for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Squires argues that the district court erred in affirming the MSPB’s decision that it lacked jurisdiction over his involuntary retirement claim.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 6, 2020  .. FSIP:  VA v. AFGE  ..  This case, filed by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (Agency, Management, or VA) on December 19, 2019, concerns over 40 articles in the parties’ successor collective bargaining agreement.     In its request for assistance, the Agency identified 42 articles as remaining in dispute. In addition to the foregoing issues, there was some confusion as to whether the parties were at impasse over two Union-proposed articles on “Staffing” and “Phased Retirement.” In its initial submission to the Panel, Management did not list either of these two articles in the list of disputed articles.     The Union claimed the parties were not at an impasse over them, but the Agency disagreed. Instead, the Agency claimed it was simply seeking to strike these two articles. The Union also raised a number of challenges to the Panel’s jurisdiction  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 6, 2020  .. D.D.C.:  EEOC v. GWU  ..  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“Plaintiff” or the “EEOC”) filed this action on behalf of Sara Williams, née Mutalib, against The George Washington University (“Defendant” or the “University”) pursuant to the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. EEOC alleges that Ms. Williams, who was employed as Executive Assistant to the University’s Director of Athletics, Patrick Nero, was treated less favorably—by being paid less for equal work and being denied employment opportunities and advancement—than a male comparator, Michael Aresco, who was hired as Special Assistant to Mr. Nero. The kernel of the present discovery dispute asks whether an attorney for the EEOC violated rule 26(b)(5)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the protective order entered in this case (the “Protective Order”), or her ethical obligations when, after Defendant informed her that the EEOC was in possession of two email chains that allegedly reflected communications among University personnel seeking legal advice from the University’s General Counsel’s office, that EEOC attorney nevertheless reviewed those documents. While there is a fairly straightforward answer to that question—yes, she, at least, violated Rule 26(b)(5)(B)—it has sprouted another dispute over whether the documents counsel reviewed were, indeed, privileged and whether the University has waived privilege. This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses all three issues.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 5, 2020  .. 5th Cir.:  Besser v. GLO  ..  Plaintiff, a former employee of the Texas General Land Office (GLO), sued the GLO and various individuals under the FAMLA and the ADA, alleging discrimination and retaliation when he used leave to care for his infirm husband.  ..  DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 5, 2020  .. 6th Cir.:  Bryant v. Wilkie (VA)  ..  Bryant began working for the VA as a certified nursing assistant in 2004. She alleges that, as early as 2009 when she worked in the acute/psych ward, her “work environment worsened and became hostile, and [she] was bullied by co-employees.”     In 2010, Bryant hurt her knee while trying to prevent a physical assault by a patient on Bryant’s supervisor.     The injury required multiple doctor appointments and caused Bryant to miss work. The injury also caused her to be transferred out of her position in the acute/psych ward for almost one year.     When she returned to the ward, she continued “to endure retaliation in the form of verbal and physical threats, a hostile work environment, and workplace bullying.”  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 5, 2020  .. 6th Cir.:  Gearhart v. Nemours  ..  Gearhart began working in 2012 as a Kapton Casting Operator for DuPont at its Circleville, Ohio facility. One of his duties was entering and cleaning the Kapton oven, a task that took anywhere from thirty minutes to a full twelve hour shift to complete.     When cleaning the oven, Kapton Casting Operators wore personal protective equipment (“PPE”) weighing approximately thirty to thirty-five pounds to protect them from the heat of the Kapton oven—generally about 140 to 150 degrees Fahrenheit when being cleaned. Due to the nature of this work, DuPont required Kapton Casting Operators to have medical clearance.     On May 7, 2014, Gearhart underwent triple bypass surgery after suffering a heart attack.     Following his surgery, Gearhart was on medical leave for close to five months, and he was not cleared for oven entry until November 11, 2014.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 5, 2020  .. 6th Cir.:  Bohler v. Fairview  ..  While working as a detective in the City of Fairview, Tenn Police Department, Bohler was contacted by Fairview resident Robert Hamilton, who claimed that another Fairview police officer, Timothy Dunning, was threatening to search Hamilton’s home.     Hamilton believed the search was motivated not by legitimate criminal suspicion, but instead by an unrelated civil suit between himself and a friend of Mark Sutton, a high-ranking Fairview police official.     Given the unsubstantiated nature of Hamilton’s allegation (Bohler found no record of an arrest or police report in the matter), Bohler advised Hamilton that he would be unable to help him.     A few months later, Bohler was asked by the District Attorney to review three pending criminal cases that needed further investigation before moving forward. One involved Hamilton, and it seemingly corroborated Hamilton’s prior claims of police misconduct.     Both surprised and concerned, Bohler reached out to Hamilton, who informed Bohler that Sutton had directed Dunning to “set up” Hamilton to be falsely arrested. So Bohler raised the matter with his direct superiors, to no avail. He also spoke to the police chief, who directed him to gather information to turn over to the District Attorney.     Yet when Bohler reached out to collect information from Joseph Cox, a fellow officer, he was rebuffed. Bohler again called the District Attorney, who eventually dismissed the case against Hamilton.     Although the District Attorney claimed the dismissal was based on “a lot of factors,” Bohler believes it was a direct result of his whistleblowing.     Bohler alleges that Cox and Dunning soon learned of Bohler’s whistleblowing and began to harass him.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       OPM  ..  Executive Order 13839,    Promoting Accountability and Streamlining Removal Procedures Consistent with Merit System Principles – Data Collection Requirement for Fiscal Years 2019 and 2020.   opm transmittals

♦       Nov 3, 2020  .. CCA:  People v. Stockman  ..  At around 9:45 p.m. on June 2, 2012, Stockman was driving when his car struck and killed a bicyclist, Gerald Weiss. The car and bicycle were traveling in the same direction on a road when the car ran into the bicycle from behind. Stockman testified at trial that he saw Weiss only immediately before the collision, and that he tried to brake and swerve to avoid him.     Accident investigators, however, found no evidence on the road of tire friction marks, which might have demonstrated hard braking or steering. Stockman testified that he was traveling around the speed limit of 50 miles per hour at the time of the collision.     Stockman was charged with Driving Under The Influence (DUI) Causing Injury (§ 23153) and its lesser included offense of DUI (§ 23152).     The jury found Stockman guilty as charged on both counts 1 and 2, and found true that he had personally inflicted great bodily injury. The trial court placed him on five years of formal probation, and imposed and suspended a sentence of five years in prison.     Stockman argues that his conviction for DUI causing injury must be reversed because the trial court erred by denying his request to instruct the jury for that crime with the same directive that it used for the lesser included offense of DUI.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 3, 2020  .. D.D.C.:  Brown v. Hayden (LOC)  ..  Plaintiff Clark Brown brings this employment discrimination lawsuit against his former employer, the Library of Congress (“LOC”), claiming that LOC failed to provide reasonable accommodations for a disability, discrimination on the basis of disability, retaliation for engaging in protected activity, a hostile work environment, an unlawful medical examination, and constructive discharge.     Plaintiff also claims age discrimination, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), age- and disability-based discrimination, in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, [...].     These claims arise from plaintiff’s alleged treatment by his direct supervisor and then her replacement after he suffered a stroke resulting in his disability and undertook protected activity in connection with that disability.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 3, 2020  .. 11th Cir.:  Powrzanas v. Jones  ..  In 2006 Mandy Powrzanas began working at Jones Utility and Contracting Co, a company owned by her father, Ricky Jones. She ran “the entire office” and oversaw its finances. That included preparing accounting records, submitting payroll taxes, making cash deposits, and making sure the company was complying with federal and state regulations.     Powrzanas testified in her deposition that she had a difficult relationship with her father. Ricky “cussed [her] every day of [her] life” and “constantly put [her] down.” They would argue with each other constantly and at one point in 2013, a fight between them led to her attempted suicide. Powrzanas’ mother often intervened to act as a buffer between them.     In January 2015 Powrzanas was diagnosed with fibromyalgia. She blamed her condition on her father’s behavior towards her.     Their fights did not stop after her diagnosis, and she was still required to come to work, but he allowed her to lie down or take breaks when she was sick.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 3, 2020  .. 5th Cir.:  Price v. Wheeler (EPA)  ..  Plaintiff-Appellant Kimeka Price, a female African American, was employed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or “Agency”) in 1996. She became an Enforcement Officer in the Hazardous Waste Enforcement Branch, Compliance Enforcement Section, Region 6.     In March 2018, Price filed suit against then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, asserting claims of discrimination and harassment on the basis of race and gender, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964.     Price’s complaint involves factual allegations made in prior complaints filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) in 2010 and 2012.     The instant lawsuit and underlying administrative complaints are premised on allegations of more than twenty instances of discrimination, harassment, and retalition that Price allegedly suffered while employed by the EPA.     Of the myriad allegations, two specific, related instances form the crux of her claims and warrant more detailed discussion: denying sick leave on May 9, 2011, and a subsequent 14-day suspension.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 2, 2020  .. 6th Cir.:  O'Donnell v. UHCleve  ..  Like many people, Dr. Alison O’Donnell disliked public speaking. In her case, this was not just a matter of preference.    Her anxiety disorder made it very difficult. This became a problem when University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center hired her as a Fellow in pediatric endocrinology.    The fellowship required her to attend and participate in weekly presentations and discussions with faculty about practice and research topics. She was unable to do this adequately and the Hospital eventually placed her on indefinite leave.     She resigned, never returning to the program. In this suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Dr. O’Donnell alleges that the Hospital and her faculty supervisors discriminated against her because of her anxiety disorder, failed to accommodate her disability, and retaliated against her after she complained.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 2, 2020  .. FLRA:  BMTC v. NAVY  ..  Arbitrator Lawrence E. Little found that the Agency did not violate the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement and applicable law by refusing to provide the grievant a copy of an investigative report arising from his allegation of a hostile work environment. The Union filed exceptions on nonfact, contrary-to-law, and essence grounds. Because the Union does not demonstrate that the award is deficient on any of these grounds, we deny the exceptions.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 2, 2020  .. FLRA:  AFGE v. VA  ..  The Union filed a grievance alleging that the Agency violated the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (Statute) and the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement by failing to respond to the Union’s information requests and requiring Union members to use official time for training. Arbitrator Dennis A. Kist issued an award that sustained the grievance in part. The Union filed exceptions challenging the Arbitrator’s award on contrary to law, essence, and nonfact grounds.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Nov 2, 2020  .. FLRA:  VA v. AFGE  ..  In this case, Arbitrator Richard A. Beens found that the Agency’s Absence and Leave Policy (the policy) did not address how a bargaining-unit employee (BUE) should properly verify her medical appointments, for purposes of leave, when that employee exclusively teleworks and is a disabled veteran.     As a result, the Arbitrator found that the Agency violated the policy by requiring a BUE—who is a disabled veteran and teleworks—to verify her medical appointment by a method not required by the policy. As a result, the Arbitrator ordered the Agency to negotiate an addendum to the policy to address how a disabled, teleworking veteran should verify his or her medical appointments. For the reasons discussed below, we find that the Agency fails to establish that the award does not draw its essence from the parties’ agreement.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 29, 2020  .. CCA:  Gardner v. Calstar  ..  Appellant, Gardner, sued her former employer for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate a disability.    Respondent Calstar Air Medical Services (Calstar) provides medical transportation services. Employees at its transfer center take information about a patient, find him or her a bed and physician, and set up transportation to definitive care.    Gardner was hired in May 2016, by Lynn Smith-Kinniburgh, the transfer center manager. After her weeks of academy training, Gardner became a transfer center coordinator trainee assigned to the night shift. There were issues between her and her first trainer, Jeff Sevigny. After Gardner acknowledged having been told during her interview that all employees must be willing to work all shifts.    One witness noted that the night shift had less staffing and calls that tended to be more urgent, requiring immediate action and faster processing.    According to shift supervisor, Gardner did not like Sevigny and felt he was not helping her. Gavin felt Sevigny was helping and Gardner “just does not want to hear anything he says”; in an October 27, 2016 email, she told Kinniburgh she believed Gardner felt “if she complains enough she will be moved to a day shift which is where she wants to be and she has stated that multiple times.”  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 29, 2020  .. 10th Cir.:  Stolley v. BCC  ..  In this en banc appeal, we address whether an adverse employment action is a requisite element of a failure-to-accommodate claim under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111–12117.     We conclude that the answer is “no,”     reaching this determination through a comprehensive analysis, including consideration of the following:     the ADA’s text;    our failure-to-accommodate precedent;    the failure-to-accommodate decisions of our sister circuits;    the views of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”), the federal regulatory agency charged with administering the ADA;    and the ADA’s general remedial purposes.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 28, 2020  ..  It’s the birthday of Dr. Jonas Salk who developed a polio vaccine  ..  Born in New York City (1914), Salk developed a polio vaccine at the height of a polio epidemic in the mid-1950s.     Salk’s discovery was that a vaccine could be developed from a dead virus, and he tested the vaccine on himself, his family, and the staff of his laboratory to prove it was safe.     The vaccine was finally released to the public in 1955, the number of people infected by polio went down from more than 10,000 a year to less than 100.     Salk was declared a national hero.  ..  SOURCE:   the writer's almanac

♦       Oct 28, 2020  .. FLRA:  Defense v. AFGE  ..  In May 2018, the Agency provided the grievant with her performance rating for the previous year. The grievant received ratings on two elements: (1) “Process Compliance” and (2) “Work Output.” She received an “outstanding” rating for process compliance, but only received a “fully successful” rating for work output. Disputing the grievant’s fully successful rating on the second element, the Union filed a grievance, which went to arbitration.     At arbitration, the parties agreed that the issue was whether the grievant “should have been given an outstanding rating for the ‘Work to Standard – Work Output (Quality and Quantity[)]’ element of her performance appraisal.”     Arbitrator Linda S. Byars found that the Agency violated the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement when it rated the grievant “fully successful” rather than “outstanding” in her performance review.     The Agency filed exceptions to the award, and the Union filed an opposition to the Agency’s exceptions.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 27, 2020  .. 5th Cir.:  Berry v. Ouachita  ..  Golden Berry sued the Ouachita Parish Sheriff’s Office (“OPSO”) and several individual officers, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation for filing a complaint with the EEOC.     OPSO hired Berry, who is black, as a correctional officer in 2000.     He attained the rank of Corporal in 2003 and maintained his position for thirteen years. His job required that he alternate between working day and night shifts.     Seeking to work consistent day shifts, Berry approached Deputy Scott Smith about the possibility of transferring to a role in the Transitional Work Release Center.     After transferring, Berry saw his pay decrease. He contends that OPSO allowed white employees to transfer while maintaining both their rank and their pay.     In November 2017, Berry filed a charge of racial discrimination with the EEOC.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 26, 2020  .. 8th Cir.:  McKey v. U.S. Bank  ..  McKey began working for U.S. Bank, a national bank with offices in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in 1975. In 2006, she started as a Securities Specialist for the Global Corporate Actions Department.     Her job included managing clients’ financial portfolios, processing trades and transactions, meeting deadlines, and working with multiple computer systems. She was generally expected to do her job within a 40-hour workweek.     From 2011 until she was fired in September 2016, McKey worked under Yvonne Mehsikomer, who reported to Senior Trust Technology and Support Services Manager Keith Frohlicher. Frohlicher reported to U.S. Bank Operations Manager Alice Owens.         Julie McKey claims U.S. Bank fired her because of her age and in retaliation for reporting discrimination in violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 26, 2020  .. 4th Cir.:  Laird v. Fairfax  ..  This suit involves allegations of discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).     Viola Laird, an employee of Fairfax County, suffers from multiple sclerosis. In 2017, Laird sued the County, claiming that she faced unlawful discrimination based on her disability when the County laterally transferred her to another department.     She also claims that the transfer came in retaliation for filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 26, 2020  .. D.D.C.:  Jones v. Cherokee  ..  Ashhab-Jones is an Arab-American woman of Palestinian descent.     In August 2012, she was hired by All Native, a CNSP predecessor, to work at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq as part of a State Department contract.     Ashhab-Jones worked in the communication section of the Information Resource Management section at the Embassy.     Her work involved deploying software to Embassies and Consulates in Iraq, training staff, and coordinating with personnel in Virginia and the District of Columbia.         Maysa Ashhab-Jones filed this lawsuit against Cherokee Nation Strategic Programs, LLC (“CNSP”), alleging Title VII discrimination based on gender, religion, national origin and background, and retaliation for filing an EEO complaint and seeking relief in retroactive reinstatement, back pay, and damages.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 23, 2020  .. FLRA:  AFGE v. Immigration  ..  Arbitrator James R. Collins denied the Union’s request for attorney fees after the grievant’s suspension was reduced to five days.     He also found that the Union failed to meet any of the relevant factors for awarding attorney fees as established by the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) in Allen v. U.S. Postal Service (Allen).     The Union argues that Arbitrator Collins’s denial of attorney fees is contrary to law.         In this case, we reiterate the standards for determining whether an award of attorney fees is warranted­—where the grieved action is disciplinary in nature—under 5 U.S.C. § 7701(g)(1).  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 23, 2020  .. MSPB:  Sabatelli v. BS&WH  ..  Frank Sabatelli was forced to resign from his job as a radiologist. He brought claims of age and disability discrimination in federal court.     Frank Sabatelli began working as a radiologist for the Scott & White Clinic (SWC) in the Baylor Scott & White Medical Center when he was 52. Sabatelli’s employment contract gave SWC authority to terminate him on 60-days’ written notice if two-thirds of the board found he was “perceived as uncooperative, difficult to get along with,” or “incompatible” with coworkers.     Coworkers frequently complained about Sabatelli, describing him as “consistently hostile,” “difficult to work with,” and “demeaning.” He made two colleagues cry. And several doctors spoke to him about complaints that he had “either yelled at or belittled [others] in a condescending manner.”  ..  Merit Systems Protection Board Decision:    (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 22, 2020  .. FLRA:  AFGE v. Forest Service  ..  The underlying grievance concerned a ten-day suspension based on two charges. The Union grieved the suspension.      The matter went to arbitration, and the Arbitrator found that the Agency did not have just cause to suspend the grievant for ten days.      Specifically, the Arbitrator found that charge one was unsupported by credible evidence and that the grievant’s conduct underlying charge two did not rise to the level warranting formal discipline.      As a remedy, the Arbitrator reversed the suspension and granted the grievant backpay.      The Union subsequently filed a motion for attorney fees, arguing that an award of attorney fees was warranted in the interest of justice under the Allen factors.      The Arbitrator found that an award of attorney fees was not in the interest of justice.      The Union filed exceptions to the Arbitrator’s award. FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 22, 2020  .. ICA:  Belterra v. Dusan  ..  Belterra Casino hired Yufen (He) Dusan, a Chinese national, as a guest room attendant.     Dusan injured her back and was placed on medical restrictions that could not be accommodated in her current position. Belterra gave Dusan a list of open positions, told her to work with human resources if she had any questions, and informed her that her employment would be terminated if she did not find a new position within thirty days.     Dusan did not apply for any positions, stopped going to work, and was terminated.     Dusan filed a complaint with the Indiana Civil Rights Commission (the Commission), alleging that Belterra had discriminated against her based on national origin and disability.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 21, 2020  .. WCA:  Ritchey v. SRC  ..  Kimberly Ritchey appeals various trial court rulings in her lawsuit against Sound Recovery Centers, LLC that resulted in a jury verdict in favor of Sound Recovery.     The lawsuit arose from Ritchey’s refusal to submit to a drug testing procedure that required employees to either allow direct observation of providing a urine sample or remove their clothing for a visual inspection before providing a urine sample.     Ritchey alleged disability discrimination and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 21, 2020  .. FLRA:  Army v. AFGE  ..  This case, filed by the United States Department of the Army, Army Contracting Command, located in Rock Island, Illinois (Agency), concerns one article in dispute in the parties’ successor collective bargaining agreement (CBA) over merit promotions.      AFGE, Local 15 represents 462 bargaining unit employees located at the Rock Island.      The bargaining unit mostly consists of contract specialists; procurement analysts; information technology specialists; budget analysts; and secretaries.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 21, 2020  .. FLRA:  Federal Protective Service v. AFGE  ..  The Federal Protective Service filed a request for assistance with the Federal Service Impasses Panel concerning a dispute over ground rules to the parties’ successor collective agreement (CBA).  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 20, 2020  .. D.D.C.:  Davis v. DC-CFS  ..  Plaintiffs, who are former employees of the District of Columbia Child and Family Services Agency, allege that their terminations from the agency during a large-scale reduction in force were discriminatory on the basis of race.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 20, 2020  .. 5th Cir.:  Park v. DEGP  ..  John Park sued his former employer, Direct Energy GP, L.L.C., for violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act. In turn, Direct Energy countersued Park for unpaid air-conditioning services. The district court granted summary judgment for both parties and dismissed all claims. Park and Direct Energy appealed. For the following reasons, we affirm the grant  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 16, 2020  .. FLRA:  ArmyMarine v. AFGE  ..  In this case, the Agency suspended the grievant for three days for misconduct. Although Arbitrator Jan Stiglitz found the misconduct undisputed and the suspension appropriate, he also found that the Agency delayed in taking disciplinary action, and sustained the grievance with regard to the grievant’s financial penalty and awarded backpay. The Agency argues that the award is contrary to the Back Pay Act (BPA). Because we find that the Arbitrator’s award of backpay is contrary to law, we vacate the award.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 16, 2020  .. Fed. Cir.:  Foster v. Army  ..  Petitioner, Thomas Foster, seeks review of a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”) denying Mr. Foster’s petition for enforcement (“PFE”) of a prior MSPB order requiring the Department of the Army (“Army”) to reinstate Mr. Foster and pay him appropriate backpay and benefits.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 16, 2020  .. 6th Cir.:  Fuerst v. AirForce  ..  Three years after she started working for the Air Force, Angela Fuerst had a bad fall at a military base. Although the fall left her disabled, she returned to work part-time. She and the Air Force discussed potential accommodations that would allow her to work a full eight-hour day. But after several years, they still had not reached a resolution, and Fuerst still could not work a full day.     The Air Force removed Fuerst from service after determining that her ability to work only part-time was affecting the office’s mission.     The Department of Labor subsequently determined that Fuerst was no longer disabled.     Fuerst then applied to participate in a fast-track reemployment program for civil-service employees who were removed from service because of a disability but have since recovered.     5 U.S.C. § 8151(b); 5 C.F.R. § 353.301(b).     She asked the Air Force to place her on the appropriate priority reemployment list, but it did not act on her request.     Fuerst appealed to the MSPB.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 15, 2020  .. D.D.C.:  McLeod-sillah  v. D.C.  ..  Kimberly McLeod-Sillah has worked as a patrol officer for the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) since 2003. . In February 2018, McLeod-Sillah reported to MPD that her immediate supervisor, Sergeant Laswaun Washington, was sexually harassing her.     After an investigation, MPD issued a “Final Investigative Report” in May 2018 that “sustained” McLeod-Sillah’s allegations against Sergeant Washington, and it referred the report to MPD’s Disciplinary Review Board.     After this report was issued, MPD assured McLeod-Sillah that Sergeant Washington would not return to the Seventh District, her work location, absent “clearance by a higher-level manager” as well as notice to district administrators.     Unsatisfied with that resolution, McLeod-Sillah filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on September 21, 2018, and she received a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC on October 26, 2018.     McLeod-Sillah timely filed this lawsuit on January 21, 2019, asserting Title VII and DCHRA hostile work environment claims based on sex.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 14, 2020  .. FLRA:  Prisons v. AFGE  ..  In this case, we set aside an award where the Arbitrator found that an Agency memorandum issued after the Union filed a grievance provided the basis for the grievance.     On March 2, 2017, the Union filed a grievance alleging that the Agency violated law and the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement when it unilaterally terminated a compressed work schedule (CWS) established for certain nursing staff. Eight days later, on March 10, 2017, the Agency issued a memo notifying the Union that it would no longer accommodate the CWS. Arbitrator Edward J. Gutman issued an award finding that the Agency’s termination of the CWS on March 10, 2017 was improper and gave rise to the Union’s grievance.     Because the Union could not have filed its grievance in response to an event that occurred after the grievance was filed, we conclude that the award is so unfounded in reason and fact and so unconnected with the wording of the parties’ agreement that it fails to draw its essence from the agreement.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 14, 2020  .. 1st Cir:  Henderson v. MBTA  ..  Plaintiff Darry Mason Henderson, a black male and Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority ("MBTA") foreman, brought claims of racial discrimination, unlawful retaliation, and negligent infliction of emotional distress against the MBTA.     The racial discrimination claim stems from Henderson's unsuccessful application for promotion to two MBTA supervisor positions in September 2012.     The positions went to two white persons who received higher interview rankings than Henderson. In fact, Henderson's rankings placed him nineteenth out of the twenty candidates interviewed.     Henderson claims that the MBTA did not select him because of his race. Henderson also contends that the MBTA retaliated against him by no longer assigning him podium duty, because he complained of racially motivated verbal abuse by a supervisor.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 14, 2020  .. D.D.C.:  CHBC v. Bowser  ..  Capitol Hill Baptist Church (“the Church”) has opened its doors for a weekly worship service for 142 years—until now. Its doors closed in March, on Mayor Muriel Bowser’s COVID-19-related orders.     At first, the Church accepted these restrictions willingly. But as the months passed by and the Mayor lifted other restrictions and welcomed mass protests to the city, the Church sought permission to hold its weekly service outdoors, with congregants masked and socially distanced.     The District denied permission because the Church’s doctrinal requirement of a weekly gathering of its entire congregation together conflicts with the Mayor’s prohibition on religious gatherings of more than 100 people, indoors or out.     The Church sues the Mayor and the District of Columbia (collectively, arguing that their actions violate, among other laws, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Before the Court is the Church’s motion for an expedited preliminary injunction.     It seeks to enjoin the District from enforcing its restrictions insofar as they prevent the Church from holding socially-distanced outdoor worship services in congregants wear masks.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 9, 2020  .. Fed. Cir.:  Spence v. DVA  ..  Petitioner worked for the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) as a lawyer.     In 2018, DVA, after taking several other actions against her for unacceptable performance, removed Ms. Spence from her job.     Under 5 U.S.C. § 7701, Ms. Spence filed an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board, challenging the removal as an “adverse action” under 5 U.S.C. chapter 75.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 9, 2020  .. Fed. Cir.:  Pybas v. OPM  ..  The petitioner, a former law enforcement officer at the Federal Bureau of Prisons, challenges the determination of the Merit Service Protection Board that he is not entitled to an annuity supplement under 5 U.S.C. § 8421(a)(1).         Between April 21, 1991, and March 19, 2006, Mr. Pybas served as a law enforcement officer for the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”).     During that time, he obtained coverage as a law enforcement officer in the Federal Employee Retirement System (“FERS”), but he became disabled before he reached the minimum age and years of service for retirement of law enforcement officers.     At the age of 49, with 14 years, 10 months, and 28 days of service, Mr. Pybas retired as a disability retiree under 5 U.S.C. § 8451, which provides retirement benefits to employees who complete at least 18 months of qualifying service and are found to be unable, because of disease or injury, to render useful and efficient service in their position. 5 U.S.C. § 8451(a)(1).     After Mr. Pybas reached his minimum retirement age, he requested that the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) recalculate his annuity to include a FERS annuity supplement. OPM denied the request on the ground that as a “disability retiree,” Mr. Pybas was not entitled to a FERS annuity supplement under 5 U.S.C. § 8421(a)(1).     Mr. Pybas appealed OPM’s decision to the Merit System Protection Board.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 8, 2020  .. Fed. Cir.:  Messam v. Nara  ..  On August 28, 2018, Ms. Arrington proposed removing Ms. Messam from federal service for negligence and for failure to follow instructions.     Ms. Messam submitted her response to Ms. Murphy, NARA’s CFO and the deciding official, on September 19, 2018.     After review of the proposed removal and Ms. Messam’s response, Ms. Murphy sustained the three specifications under the negligence charge but did not sustain the failure to follow instructions charge.     As a result, NARA removed Ms. Messam from her position effective September 28, 2018.     On October 25, Ms. Messam filed an appeal with the Board.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 7, 2020  .. FLRA:  IRS v. NTEU  ..  On August 4, 2017, the grievants, who opened and initially sorted incoming mail, were working in a mail extraction area (Extraction 1) at the Agency’s facilities. Around 8:30 a.m. an envelope was opened and one of the grievants nearly fainted. The remainder of the grievants experienced disorientation, nausea, burning eyes, and dizziness. Several of the grievants were then transported to the hospital by stretchers and/or wheelchairs.     Eventually, the supervisor on duty initiated lockdown procedures in Extraction 1 and the local fire department hazmat team arrived on the premises to investigate.[1] After nearly two hours, the local fire department declared “all clear.”     Agency management told those grievants who had not been removed for medical treatment that the Agency would authorize liberal sick, annual, and leave without pay. Approximately eighteen of those employees chose to take sick, annual, or leave without pay. In contrast, the Agency gave the four grievants who were sent to the hospital administrative leave for the remainder of their shift after the incident on August 4, 2017.     Thereafter, the Union filed a grievance alleging that the Agency violated Article 27, Section 1(A) and Section 2 of the parties’ agreement by failing to maintain a safe and healthful working environment.     The Union also alleged that the Agency violated the parties’ agreement by improperly denying administrative leave, by failing to advise the grievants of their Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) rights regarding the incident, and by refusing to provide copies of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) report to the Union. The Agency denied the grievance and arbitration ensued.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 7, 2020  .. 9th Cir.:  Hazelett v. Wal-Mart  ..  Hazelett worked for Wal-Mart, beginning August 10, 2010, at a retail store near her home, and in 2014 she became an order-filler at one of the Wal-Mart distribution centers, which was a substantially farther distance from her home. She was injured at work on February 28, 2015. Plaintiff injured her foot at work on February 28, 2015. Hazelett initially filed for workers’ compensation and at a later date requested a leave of absence.     During her work-related temporary disability, Wal-Mart offered Hazelett a temporary alternate duty (“TAD”) assignment. The form on which she chose the assignment includes an option for refusing the temporary duty assignment. It provides: “I REFUSE the Temporary Alternate Duty (TAD) position being offered to me and acknowledge that my benefits could be suspended or denied due to noncompliance.” In short, Hazelett was injured on the job, offered a TAD which her injury prevented attendance, and then terminated due to the effects of her injury.     Her work-related disability prevented her from operating a motor vehicle.     The TAD required her to report to work in the wee hours of the morning when no public transportation, save a taxi, was available.     As a result, she was unable to find transportation.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 6, 2020  .. FLRA:  VA v. AFGE  ..  The Arbitrator sustained the Union’s grievance alleging that the Agency violated the parties’ collective bargaining agreement by failing to provide safe working conditions for housekeeper and laborer employees.     The questions before us are whether the award: (1) is incomplete, ambiguous, or contradictory, (2) is contrary to law, or (3) fails to draw its essence from the parties’ agreement.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 6, 2020  .. FLRA:  SBA v. AFGE  ..  The Arbitrator issued an award finding, as relevant here, that a grievance was arbitrable because it sought a seven-year temporary promotion and an updated position description.     The main question before us is whether the award is contrary to law.     In this case, we inform This Arbitrator, and remind others in the federal-labor management community, that a grievance concerns a non-arbitrable classification matter under § 7121(c)(5) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) when its essential nature is integrally related to the accuracy of the classification of the grievant’s position.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 6, 2020  .. DSC:  Bateman v. Delaware  ..  Plaintiff filed an employment discrimination action against her former employer, the Delaware Department of Transportation, on January 8, 2018.     She alleged discrimination on the basis of race, gender, and sexual orientation as well as retaliation.     Bateman alleges a history of racial, sexual, and sexual orientation abuse and harassment directed at her by co-workers and supervisors. She describes it as “the most vile, degrading and disgusting verbal and sexual abuse imaginable, complete sexual, racial, and homophobic rants, replete with demands for sex acts to be performed on her male co-workers, including her immediate supervisor, all while constantly labeling her a ‘Ni---r’’’?     The details she recites of that of that abuse, if true, and the Court has no reason to suspect they are not, fully support her characterization of it.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 6, 2020  .. 11th Cir.:  Jones v. AIDB  ..  Michelle Jones appeals the district court’s order dismissing her complaint against her employer, the Alabama Institute for the Deaf and Blind (“AIDB”), Jamie Johnson, Jones’s supervisor at AIDB, and Larry Stone, a grounds man at AIDB.      On June 11, 2019, Jones filed a complaint for employment discrimination under the Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.      In her complaint, she alleged that the defendants violated Title VII and the ADEA by discriminating against her in her termination, failing to promote her, retaliating against her, harassing her, defaming her, slandering her, and imposing unequal terms and conditions of employment on her.      She said Defendants discriminated against her in this way because she is African American, female and based on her sexual orientation.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 5, 2020  .. D.D.C.:  Hall v. WMATA  ..  Plaintiff Tracy Hall brings this employment discrimination lawsuit against her former employer, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (“WMATA”), to challenge WMATA’s termination of her employment, failure to hire her as a Bus Scheduling System Specialist, and hostile work environment, as well as its failure to ensure that she received notice of her options for continuation coverage under its group health plan upon termination.      These claims are based on plaintiff’s allegations that she was terminated, not hired, and subject to a hostile work environment both because she had a disability of chronic migraines and in retaliation for protected activity she undertook in relation to that disability.      Defendant attributes plaintiff’s termination and non-hiring solely to her poor job performance, and denies that plaintiff was subject to harassment that rose to the level of a hostile work environment.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 5, 2020  .. 9th Cir.:  Green v. Phoenix  ..  Jeffrey Green is a Sergeant in the Phoenix Police Department. In 2015, he brought an action against the City of Phoenix alleging that, between 2012 and 2015, the City violated Title VII by retaliating against him for filing EEOC charges, helping a subordinate file a sexual harassment complaint, and refusing to aid his supervisor in conduct violating Title VII.      Green’s alleged damages, which were limited to pain and suffering, were not supported by any witnesses, evidence, or documentation other than his own testimony.      Throughout the period relevant to his claims and continuing to the present time, Green has continued to be employed by the Phoenix Police Department.      The case went to trial and a jury returned a $1.5 million verdict for Green.      The district court then vacated the jury verdict.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 2, 2020  .. FLRA:  Prisons v. AFGE  ..  The Union filed a formal grievance with the Agency alleging that the Agency’s failure to relieve certain employees for their contractual half hour duty-free lunch and properly compensate them for that time worked violated the parties’ agreement and the Fair Labor Standards Act.      The Agency rejected the grievance and raised both procedural and substantive objections. In January 2018, the Union invoked arbitration.      At arbitration, the Agency maintained that the grievance was procedurally defective. As relevant here, the Agency asserted that the grievance was not filed at the appropriate level, in violation of the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 1, 2020  .. 10th Cir.:  Sanderson v. WHP  ..  Delsa Brooke Sanderson brought three claims against her employer, Wyoming Highway Patrol (“WHP”), under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.     Two of those claims—for retaliation and hostile work environment based on sex—are at issue on appeal.     Sanderson also appeals the district's grant to exclude Sanderson’s designated expert witness, Linda Forst.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 1, 2020  .. FLRA:  United States Department of Agriculture, Office of the General Counsel (Petitioner)  ..  The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the General Counsel (USDA) requests a general statement of policy or guidance (general statement) concerning the authority of an agency head, under § 7114(c) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute),[1] to review the legality of an expiring collective-bargaining agreement that states that it will remain in force until the parties reach a new agreement.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 1, 2020  .. FLRA:  United States Office of Personnel Management (Petitioner)  ..  Pursuant to § 2427.2 of the Authority’s Regulations,     the Office of Personnel Management (the Petitioner) requests that the Authority issue a general statement of policy or guidance regarding whether “zipper clauses”—provisions that would foreclose or limit midterm bargaining during the term of a collective-bargaining agreement (CBA)—are a mandatory subject of bargaining.     Specifically, the Petitioner asks us to find that zipper clauses are a mandatory subject of bargaining.     We find that they are.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Oct 1, 2020  .. FLRA:  Education and. Agriculture  ..  Pursuant to § 2427.2 of the Authority’s Regulations,     the Petitioners request that the Authority issue a general statement of policy or guidance regarding the standard that the Authority should use for deciding whether a management-initiated change triggers an agency’s duty to bargain under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute).     Specifically, the Petitioners ask the Authority to return to the “clear and meaningful” substantial change standard,     because arbitrators, judges, and the Authority have been “inconsist[ent] and ambigu[ous]” in their application of the current “de minimis” standard.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 30, 2020  .. 6th Cir.:  Bohler v. Fairview  ..  Today’s case is an additional chapter in a long-running dispute between the Fairview Police Department and former officer Bohler.      Bohler claims that he quit the department when his superiors threatened him with a demotion motivated by Bohler’s prior whistleblowing.     Bohler also claims that two fellow officers defamed him by accusing him of misusing his official sick time.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 30, 2020  .. D.D.C.:  Guisbert v. Wash Convention  ..  Plaintiff Gonzalo Guisbert brings this employment discrimination action against Defendant Washington Convention and Sports Authority under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and the D.C. Human Rights Act (DCHRA).      Guisbert alleges discrimination based on age and race, and age-based retaliation.      Defendant, Washington Convention and Sports Authority, moves to dismiss the retaliation claims (Count V and VI) for failure to state a claim.      For the reasons set forth below, the court will DENY Washington Convention and Sports Authority’s Motion to Dismiss.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 30, 2020  .. CCA:  Drevaleva v. AHS  ..  Alameda Health System (AHS) hired Drevaleva as a cardiac monitor technician in 2013. In an August 2013 conversation with her supervisor, Drevaleva challenged her part-time employee status, lack of paid breaks during her work shifts, unpaid shift differentials, and unpaid overtime compensation.      After nothing in her wages or employee status changed, on September 5, 2013, Drevaleva sent her supervisor a letter reiterating her questions.      On September 7, 2013, AHS terminated Drevaleva for her failure to comply with AHS employment standards.      She then filed a retaliation claim with the Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DIR), seeking a variety of remedies including overtime wages and differential pay.      In December 2016, after a thorough investigation, DIR determined Drevaleva was terminated for a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason—her negligence had seriously harmed a patient—and denied Drevaleva’s claim. An AHS email dated September 4, 2013 documented its decision to terminate Drevaleva before she authored her September 5 letter.      Drevaleva filed several state and federal lawsuits against AHS and DIR related to her termination, alleging discrimination, retaliation, libel, negligence, fraud, and violations of the Labor Code.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 29, 2020  .. 6th Cir.:  Kuklinski v. Treasury  ..  Kuklinski worked as a supervisory police inspector with the U.S. Mint Police1 at the U.S. Bullion Depository in Fort Knox, Kentucky.      Police Inspector Anthony Kuklinski alleges that he was investigated and removed from his position because he attempted to stop long-term harassment of a female employee by a male employee.      Defendant (as named and including references to the Mint) justifies the employment actions taken based on evidence supporting both Kuklinski’s failure to comply with his tax obligations and his aggressive management activities that caused low employee morale.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 29, 2020  .. 11th Cir.:  Jay v. Auburn U  ..  Jay, filed suit against Auburn alleging that the school discriminated against him based on his disability in 2016 by (1) failing to hire him, (2) failing to accommodate him once he made it aware of his disability, and (3) hiring a non-disabled applicant, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act.     ---      Jay’s disability status results from a variety of impairments. In April 2001, he broke his neck when he fell off a ladder while cutting down a large tree limb on his property.      In 2010, Jay fell at home and damaged his left shoulder. Following a surgery in 2011, Jay is able to use his left arm and shoulder without substantial limitations.      Jay was also diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) by a clinical psychologist.      In December 2016, Jay applied for the Tech I/II position at Auburn’s Rural Studio.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 29, 2020  .. 11th Cir.:  Davis v. Columbus  ..  James Davis, a former employee of Columbus, Georgia Consolidated Government, worked as a bus operator for Columbus’s public transportation service from 2004 to December 2015.      The job description for a bus operator showed that the position required, among other things, frequent bending, squatting, climbing, lifting up to 25 pounds, and pushing occupied standard wheelchairs.      In late 2015, Davis began missing work due to neck pain related to spinal stenosis. He soon exhausted his regular leave and in November 2015, Davis’s 12 weeks of leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act expired as well.      Davis appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Columbus in his civil suit alleging that the city unlawfully discriminated against him in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 29, 2020  .. 11th Cir.:  Johnson v. FDOC  ..  Johnson began working for the FDOC in 2005. She was employed as a correctional officer at Franklin Correctional Institution (FCI) throughout her career. Early in Johnson’s career, she had positive performance reviews and was recognized for her good work.      Johnson says everything changed in 2010, when she noticed FCI’s culture change to become centered around “a ‘good ol’ boy’ club based on family relations or sex.”      She started having conflicts with her supervisors and co-workers, especially Lieutenant Wilburn Messer. Messer became Johnson’s Captain and shift supervisor in 2014.      Johnson said she suffered “continued harassment” from Messer, including sexual harassment and reprimands based on false allegations.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 28, 2020  .. 6th Cir.:  Kidis v. Reid  ..  After a day of heavy drinking at a Labor Day festival, Nikos Kidis sideswiped another vehicle, causing a minor accident. Nervous from the incident, Kidis exited his vehicle and fled.      Eventually, Kidis gave up fleeing the police. He surrendered, lying face down on the ground, his hands stretched out above his head.      Officer John Moran, upon arriving at the scene, thrust his knee into Kidis and started to choke him. Moran continued to punch and strangle Kidis.      A jury found that Officer John Moran used excessive force in arresting Nikos Kidis. The jury awarded Kidis $1 in compensatory damages and $200,000 in punitive damages.      Both parties appealed.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 25, 2020  .. Federal Claims:  Yu v. U.S. (Postal)  ..  Plaintiff Yuen C. Yu has worked for the USPS since 1994.      Although she sought a permanent USPS position and completed the required eligibility tests, she remained a nonpermanent, casual employee for over eighteen years.      Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on August 13, 2007, alleging discrimination based on her age and her race.      On September 13, 2007, plaintiff and the USPS entered into a settlement agreement      Plaintiff seeks damages arising from the alleged breach of her equal employment opportunity settlement agreement with the United States Postal Service (“USPS”).      Defendant United States moves to dismiss plaintiff’s claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 25, 2020  .. 4th Cir.:  Driskell v. Summit  ..  In this case, a jury found that Summit Contracting Group violated North Carolina law by firing Justin Driskell as retaliation, either (1) for his complaints about workplace safety or (2) because Summit believed that he would file a workers’ compensation claim.      Summit appeals, arguing that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law or a new trial, and that the jury’s punitive-damages award wasn’t supported by the evidence.      Justin Driskell cross-appeals, contending that the district court erred by not increasing the jury’s compensatory damages award to reflect the full amount of back pay that he’s owed and by requiring him to elect between punitive damages and attorney’s fees.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 25, 2020  .. D.D.C.:  George v. Molson  ..  Melchior George, an African American, started working for Molson Coors in 1991 as an Area Sales Manager. Twenty years later, he was promoted to the position of National Account Executive.      He was one of two African Americans “at his level” in his division.      As a National Account Executive, he was responsible for all sales programming for chains on the East Coast, including the Buffalo Wild Wings chain.      His team received several performance awards.      Between July and September of that year, he experienced “severe and debilitating nausea,” leading to his hospitalization.      Medical tests revealed that he had congestive heart failure and additional tests found him an ideal candidate for a heart transplant.      Melchior George eventually received a heart transplant.      He showed interest in returning to work, with accommodations, but Molson Coors terminated him.      George brings claims of disability and race discrimination under the D.C. Human Rights Act (“DCHRA”) and claims of interference and retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).      Molson Coors moves to dismiss.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 25, 2020  .. D.D.C.:  Harris v. MTM  ..  Plaintiffs in this putative class action are drivers who claim that they have been underpaid in violation of federal and local wage laws for transporting Medicaid patients in the District of Columbia.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 24, 2020  .. OCA:  State v. Bowden  ..  Midway through an Ohio Vehicle Inspection (OVI) checkpoint, a driver throws his car into reverse and begins to back away. This behavior attracts the attention of the state trooper monitoring the checkpoint, who eventually flags down the errant driver. Based on evidence of drug impairment, the driver is arrested and later convicted of a misdemeanor OVI. On appeal, defendant-appellant Jonathan Bowden challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his OVI conviction, asserting that the state failed to prove a nexus between his ingestion of a drug of abuse and his impaired driving.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 24, 2020  .. OCA:  Reading v. F.O.P.  ..  The City of Reading, Pennsylvania terminated the employment of Police Officer Roth in February 2018 for his failure to meet departmental standards of performance, following multiple years of subpar-performance ratings.      In this appeal, we review the trial court’s denial of the City of Reading, Pa's motion to vacate the arbitrator's decision and confirming an arbitrator’s award that modified the discipline imposed upon Reading Police Officer Anthony Roth from a termination to a five-day suspension.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 24, 2020  .. CCA:  People v. Belyew  ..  Defendant Lisa Marie Belyew stabbed her husband in the chest with an ice pick and sprayed him with a fire extinguisher during an argument.      Following a jury trial in which she represented herself, defendant was found guilty of assault with a deadly weapon and infliction of corporal injury upon a spouse.      The jury also found true the allegations that she had used a deadly weapon, inflicted great bodily injury, and was out on bail for a felony offense at the time the current offenses were committed .      The trial court sentenced her to an aggregate term of seven years in state prison.      Marie Belyew timely appealed.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 24, 2020  .. CAC:  Chaplin v. CSPB  ..  Real party in interest California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) disciplined three of its firefighters (appellants Justin Chaplin, James Michels, and Frank Schonig) for cheating on a promotional exam. One of the men appealed his discipline to respondent California State Personnel Board (Board), but the other two did not.      While the one appeal was pending, CAL FIRE substituted new disciplinary notices against all three men, seeking to impose harsher penalties. Over the men’s objections, the Board allowed CAL FIRE to proceed.      The firefighters filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the trial court, which the court denied.      The 3 firefighters appeal the decision.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 23, 2020  .. ACA:  Baron v. Honorhealth  ..  Baron was hired by HonorHealth as an Electronic Medical Records trainer. After working for HonorHealth for less than one month, Baron emailed his supervisor complaining that another trainer was not accurately grading the physician and medical assistant training assessments.      Baron was terminated from HonorHealth for having “fabricated or distorted, exaggerated or minimized a report of wrongdoing or a violation of the Compliance Program, laws and regulations.”      Baron sued HonorHealth, supervisors and directors.  ..  DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 23, 2020  .. ICA.:  Eib v. Indiana  ..  Jarred L. Eib was terminated from his employment as a staff attorney with the Indiana Department of Child Services (DCS). Eib appealed his dismissal to DCS, then the State Personnel Department (SPD), and finally to the State Employees’ Appeals Commission (the SEAC). After the SEAC granted summary judgment in favor of DCS, Eib sought judicial review. The trial court affirmed the decision of the SEAC, agreeing with its determination that Eib was an unclassified employee and that he had not established that his dismissal contravened public policy. Eib now appeals, presenting several issues for our review:  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 23, 2020  .. CCA.:  People v. Webb  ..  In March 2013, appellant and codefendant Ephraim Cho were members of the Hellside criminal street gang. Cho was romantically interested in “Kathy,” who was in a relationship with appellant’s friend, victim Benjamin Chen. Kathy told Chen that Cho was “actively pursu[ing] her” and “want[ed] them to end their relationship.”      On March 13, appellant called Chen and told him to meet him at a church and that “if he did not come out and talk to them, things could get worse.” When Chen approached the church, he saw Kathy speaking to appellant and codefendant David Han, a member of the Hanzkook Boyz criminal street gang.      Cho drove up in a vehicle and demanded that Chen get in. Chen got into the front passenger seat and Han got in the back seat. Cho identified himself as a Hellside member, pointed a gun at Chen, and threatened to shoot him. Cho also pulled out a knife and threatened to stab Chen.      Han drove Cho and Chen to Chen’s home, where Chen retrieved his ATM cards. Han then drove Chen to several banks, where Chen withdrew a total of $2,400. Chen gave the money to Han.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 22, 2020  .. 10th Cir.:  Aubrey v. Koppes  ..  Plaintiff Kimberly Aubrey was, by all accounts, an exemplary employee for the Weld County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder’s office.      She became unable to work for a time due to posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (“PRES”), a rare condition characterized by fluctuating blood pressure that causes swelling in the brain, coma and sometimes death. Eventually Aubrey’s PRES resolved and she began to recover.      The County allowed her to take several months off but eventually terminated her employment.      By that time, Aubrey contends, she had recovered sufficiently to be able to return to her job, with reasonable accommodation for her disability.      Aubrey sued the County under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and several related statutes.  ..  Court Decision:    (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 22, 2020  .. FSIP:  Defense v. AFGE  ..  The U.S. Department of Defense, Defense Logistics Agency (Agency or DLA), located in Fort Belvoir, Virginia filed a request for assistance with the Federal Service Impasses Panel (Panel) under the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (Statute), 5 U.S.C. § 7119, concerning a dispute from negotiations over a successor collective bargaining agreement (CBA).  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 22, 2020  .. FLRA:  NTEU v. FCC  ..  In early March 2020, the parties began substantive negotiations over six reopened articles from their basic negotiated agreement and one new article (the disputed articles). During bargaining, the parties also attempted to renegotiate several unopened articles that the Agency claimed were nonnegotiable (the unopened articles).     Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the parties bargained telephonically starting in mid-March 2020.     During bargaining, the parties failed to reach agreement on several articles, and the Agency requested the assistance of the Federal Service Impasses Panel. The Union filed a motion requesting that the Authority stay the Panel proceedings (the motion).  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 22, 2020  .. FLRA:  IUPEDJ v. PBGC  ..  The Union filed a grievance on behalf of an employee (Porter grievance) on January 16, 2018. The Agency denied the grievance on February 22, and the Union invoked arbitration on February 28. On     October 18, the Agency notified the Union that the Porter grievance was void because the Union had failed to “actively pursue” the grievance within six months as required by Article 2, Section 3(A)(11) (Article 2) of the parties’ agreement.     Arbitrator Charles Feigenbaum found that the Union’s grievance was not arbitrable because the Union failed to actively pursue the grievance as required by the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement.     The Union argues that the award should be vacated on nonfact, contrary-to-law, essence, and exceeds-authority grounds.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 17, 2020  .. Fed. Cir.:  Ramirez v. DHS  ..  The petitioner seeks review of an arbitrator’s final award sustaining his removal from his job as a Customs and Border Protection Officer for the Department of Homeland Security.     The petitioner contends that the arbitrator lacked the authority to order another psychiatric evaluation after stating, in an interim award, that the prior evaluations failed to preponderantly establish that Mr. Ramirez was unfit for duty.     The petitioner further contends that he was denied due process when the agency refused to provide him with the records of the written psychological assessments underlying his psychiatric evaluations.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 17, 2020  .. D.C. Cir.:  Menoken v. Dhillon (EEOC)  ..  Appellant, Menoken, worked as an attorney for the Equal EEOC from 1982 until 2019.     In 2016, Menoken filed a lawsuit against the EEOC alleging that EEOC engaged in a pattern of harassment and hostility in retaliation for her filing various anti-discrimination and retaliation claims.     She alleged that the EEOC’s hostile behavior caused her to experience and seek medical treatment for “depression, acute stress, severe hypertension and ‘complex’ post-traumatic stress disorder.”     As a result of these medical conditions, Menoken sought a reasonable accommodation from the EEOC under the Rehabilitation Act, which requires that federal employers such as the EEOC accommodate individuals with disabilities under the same standards as the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.     The EEOC denied Menoken’s request for a reasonable accommodation.     In her complaint, Menoken raised four separate claims under the Rehabilitation Act.     The district court dismissed Menoken’s complaint in its entirety.     The district court erred. We therefore reverse and remand.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 17, 2020  .. FLRA:  EIB v. AFGE  ..  The Union petitioned the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) to clarify the bargaining-unit status of numerous Agency positions. As relevant here, the parties continued to dispute the bargaining-unit status of seven positions, and the FLRA Regional Director Jessica Bartlett (the RD) concluded that those positions are non-professional. Accordingly, she directed that the employees occupying the seven positions, and the employees that the parties stipulated are non-professional, be included in the bargaining unit.     Subsequently, the Agency filed an application for review of the RD’s decision, and, in Export, the Authority reversed the decision as to the seven disputed positions.     Specifically, the Authority found that those positions are professional and directed the RD to exclude them from the unit of nonprofessional employees.     Regarding the stipulated non-professional employees, the Authority held that because they outnumbered the employees already in the unit, the RD erred by including them in the unit without an election.     Thus, the Authority also directed the RD to conduct an election to determine whether the affected employees desire to be represented by the Union.     The Union has now filed the motion for reconsideration (motion) at issue here.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 17, 2020  .. D.D.C.:  Mapes v. Reed  ..  In late 2018, U.S. Senator Jack Reed appointed Plaintiff to the newly created National Commission on Military Aviation Safety.     Upon a recommendation from the Air Force, the Senator removed Mapes from that position approximately fourteen months later. Plaintiff believes that his discharge was unlawful.     He asks this Court to reinstate and compensate him.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 15, 2020  .. 7th Cir.:  Mlsna v. Union Pacific Railroad  ..  When the Federal Railroad Administration put in place new regulations related to hearing, a train conductor—who has been hearing-impaired since youth and has worn hearing aids for years—was caught in a bind. He passed a hearing acuity test, but only when using hearing aids without additional hearing protection.     According to the railroad, this placed him in violation of a policy which requires that protection be worn if the employee is exposed to noise above a certain level. The railroad and the conductor could not agree on an accommodation for him to use other hearing devices. The railroad would not recertify the conductor, and he lost his job.     The conductor sued arguing that the railroad discriminated against him because of his hearing disability.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 15, 2020  .. Fed. Cl.:  Honse v. U.S. (VA)  ..  On January 22, 2008, Plaintiff began employment as a health technician in the ophthalmology department of the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs in the Long Beach Medical Center.     On April 7, 2017, Plaintiff was removed from federal service on the grounds of “one charge of Failure to Follow Instructions . . . and one charge . . . of Conduct Unbecoming a Federal Employee.”     Plaintiff filed an appeal of her removal from federal service with the MSPB, alleging disability discrimination.     Ms. Honse, was subsequently reinstated and compensated for the period of removal through two decisions of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).     Plaintiff brings this claim against the United States, seeking compensation for amounts she contends the VA improperly charged her for certain health and unemployment benefits.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 15, 2020  .. D.D.C.:  Sargent v. Department of State  ..  Sargent took a job as a K9 handler and kennel master with SOC LLC, a government contracting firm responsible for providing security to the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq.     After Sargent reported multiple instances of alleged sexual harassment by a State Department employee, SOC transported her back to the United States and promised to resolve the problem and then return Sargent to the Embassy to continue her work.     Rather than following through on its promises, SOC fired Sargent and allegedly caused the State Department to censure her, effectively foreclosing any future opportunities as a security contractor.     After engaging with the EEOC and various State Department offices, Sargent filed this suit alleging violations of the Civil Rights Act and common-law intentional infliction of emotional distress against both SOC and the State Department.  ..  D.D.C.:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 11, 2020  .. FLRA:  VA v. AFGE  ..  The Arbitrator determined that the VA did not have just cause to suspend the grievant for alleged abuse of leave.     The VA argues that the Arbitrator denied it a fair hearing because he did not consider evidence that the VA submitted in its post-hearing brief, that the award fails to draw its essence from the parties’ agreement, the attorney fees is contrary to the Back Pay Act.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 11, 2020  .. D.D.C.:  Small v.  Cuellar  ..  For four months, Kristie Small worked as Deputy Chief of Staff in the Office of Congressman Henry Cuellar (the “Office”) until Cuellar terminated her employment. Small claims he fired her because she asked for maternity leave.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 11, 2020  .. 6th Cir.:  Harrison v. Soave  ..  In December 2005, Harrison became a manager of Parts Galore, a self-service used auto parts salvage yard. In 2007, she moved to a second location, “Parts Galore II,” where she also served as a manager. At these facilities customers can pay a two-dollar entrance fee, which allows them to harvest and purchase parts from scrap cars and trucks located throughout many acres.     Harrison inspected the yard two to three times a day in a John Deere “Gator” vehicle. As part of those inspections, she checked for improperly placed cars, monitored employees, and assessed holes in the fence to help prevent theft.     Stephan Murell, Parts Galore's Regional Manager, prepared a preliminary report that documented problems at Parts Galore II.     The underperformance at the facility included holes along the fence (linked to possible incidents of theft), poorly inspected vehicles (with dangerous parts (i.e., jacks) not having been removed), slacking employees, and a deficient video feed monitor.  ..  DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 11, 2020  .. 5th Cir.:  Scott-Benson v. KBR  ..  Scott-Benson was employed with KBR from 2013–2016. During this time, Scott-Benson worked as a Health Safety and Environment (HSE) Inspector on a construction project in Waggaman, Louisiana.     While working on the Waggaman project, Scott-Benson’s co-workers reported to KBR’s Ethics Hotline that Scott-Benson was in a relationship with her HSE Supervisor, Danny Geisinger, and they believed she was receiving favorable treatment.     KBR commenced an investigation, and though the relationship was not substantiated, both were written up and advised to change their workplace conduct.     Scott-Benson then filed her first of two EEOC charges, alleging (1) sex discrimination because “co-workers accused [her] of being romantically involved with her Supervisor,” and (2) retaliation because she had “informed corporate of a possible HIPPA violation” regarding her medical records.     In November 2016, the Waggaman project ended, and Scott-Benson was laid off.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 10, 2020  .. FLRA:  VA v. AFGE  ..  With this case, we again remind the federal labor-relations community that procedural deadlines pursuant to a collective-bargaining agreement must be taken seriously.     At issue in this case are the procedural requirements for invoking arbitration provided by Article 44 of the parties’ agreement.     Arbitrator Cary Morgen found that the Agency had waived any timeliness objections by failing to raise them prior to arbitration. He further found that even in the absence of waiver, the fact that the grievance alleged a continuing violation meant the Union could invoke arbitration at any time.     The Agency ignores the clear language of Article 44.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 10, 2020  .. FLRA:  AFGE v. AirForce  ..  The grievants are fuel systems aircraft mechanics. Their work entails repairing fuel tanks and fuel systems within confined spaces.     Article 28 of the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement provides for EDP to be paid “in accordance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations” if employees perform duties that involve “physical hardship or hazard.”     The Union requested backpay for the grievants.  ..  (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 10, 2020  .. Fed. Cir.:  Lewis v. Treasury  ..  In November 2017, Ms. Lewis learned that Mr. McCreight rated Ms. Lewis in her performance review as “met expectations” (also referred to as “met”), and in response she filed a complaint with the Treasury’s Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) alleging that Mr. McCreight engaged in poor and improper management practices.     For her part, Ms. Henby described that “Lewis did well in some aspects of her job but had difficulties with other aspects. For example, Lewis was quick to point out variances in the accounting for the group. . . . She believed that Lewis struggled in getting past the variances and was unable to find viable solutions to the problems.”      TIGTA did not refer the case for any further action.      Ms. Lewis resigned in November 2017. After she resigned, the Agency issued Ms. Lewis’s finalized performance evaluation, rating her as a “met.”      Thereafter, Ms. Lewis filed a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC).  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 10, 2020  .. Fed. Cir.:  Gibson v. OPM  ..  Rita Gibson sought survivor-annuity benefits, asserting that she was a “widow” of a retired federal employee. 5 U.S.C. § 8341(b)(1).      To qualify as a “widow,” she had to have been married to her husband “for at least 9 months immediately before his death.” Id. § 8341(a)(1).      Her marriage lasted from May 21, 2018, to the date of her husband’s death, February 15, 2019—a total of 270 days, but six days shy of the 9-month “anniversary.”      The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) concluded that she had not been married for at least 9 months before February 15, 2019, and denied the benefits claims.      Gibson appealed OPM's decision.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 9, 2020  .. FLRA:  EPA v. AFGE  ..  In February 2016, the Union notified the Agency that its membership failed to ratify the tentative agreement. In September 2016, the parties agreed to commence the reopened negotiations.     After years of back and forth discussion about reconvening bargaining and the matters that would be open for renegotiations, in May 2018, the Agency notified the Union that pursuant to Article 41, Section 3 of the CBA, the Agency was reopening the full CBA in light of President Trump’s Executive Orders, issued May 25, 2018.     In June 2018, the Agency sent AFGE new Ground Rules proposals.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 9, 2020  .. FLRA:  EDUCATION v. FEA  ..  This case, filed by the U.S. Department of Defense Education Activity (DODEA or Agency), concerns a dispute over the parties’ successor collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) between it and the Federal Education Association (FEA or Union). This dispute was filed pursuant to §7119 of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute). The Federal Service Impasses Panel (Panel or FSIP) asserted jurisdiction over this dispute and directed the matter to be resolved in the manner discussed below.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 8, 2020  .. D.D.C.:  Breiterman v. Capitol Police  ..  United States Capitol Police employee Jodi Breiterman sued USCP, alleging that her suspension and demotion resulted from unlawful gender discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Congressional Accountability Act and the First Amendment.     USCP tells a different story, asserting that it suspended Breiterman for remarking to fellow employees that women had to “sleep with someone” to get ahead there, and that it demoted her for leaking a picture of an unattended USCP firearm to the press.     In response, Breiterman claims that USCP singled her out because of her gender and in retaliation for her protected activity.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 8, 2020  .. D.D.C.:  Savignac v. Jones Day  ..  Jones Day is a large, international law firm.     Mark Savignac and Julia Sheketoff are attorneys who formerly worked as associates in the Issues & Appeals group in Jones Day’s Washington, D.C. office.     Defendants Jones Day, Stephen Brogan, and Beth Heifetz move to dismiss Plaintiffs Mark Savignac and Julia Sheketoff’s complaint alleging sex discrimination and retaliation.     Jones Day determines the size of annual salary adjustments for each associate based in part on reviews submitted by the partners who worked with the associate during the relevant period.     These reviews are compiled by the partnership into a “consensus statement” for the associate, and Jones Day’s managing partner, Stephen Brogan, approves each associate’s salary change based on his or her consensus statement.     Associates are not provided copies of their consensus statements or evaluations, and they are not permitted to discuss their salaries with others at the firm.     Plaintiffs allege that this “black-box compensation system . . . enables and conceals sex discrimination” because salary raises are made at the discretion of the predominantly male partnership and because associates are not permitted to share their salaries with others.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 8, 2020  .. 11th Cir.:  Fleck v. Transportation  ..  Paul E. Fleck appeals the district court’s order granting the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (“DOT”) motion for summary judgment on his complaint alleging discrimination and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act.     On appeal, Fleck argues that -- although he never filed a complaint related to his claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) -- his claims were exhausted because they presented a mixed case of discrimination and actions appealable to the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”) and, therefore, he exhausted his administrative remedies through that appeal.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 8, 2020  .. 7th Cir.:  Marshall v. Indiana  ..  Robbie Marshall claims his former employer, the Indiana Department of Correction, discriminated against him because of his sexual orientation and retaliated against him.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 4, 2020  .. DOJ OIG INVESTIGATIONS :    (1)  Investigative Summary : Findings of Misconduct by an Assistant United States Attorney for Providing Assistance to a Target of a Federal Investigation and Related Misconduct.   summary

♦       Sep 4, 2020  .. D.D.C.:  Reid-Witt v. DC  ..  C.W. was a student at Washington’s Benjamin Banneker High School before her disabilities interfered with her studies.     She was granted various accommodations but her multiple requests for special-education services were denied. Unable to maintain consistent attendance, C.W. fell below the requirements for continued enrollment and the school asked her to withdraw.     After exhausting administrative remedies, C.W’s mother, Karla Reid-Witt, filed this suit alleging a violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 3, 2020  .. FLRA:  AFGE v. VA  ..  Arbitrator found that the grievant’s nonselection for a position outside of the bargaining unit was not substantively arbitrable under the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement. The Union filed exceptions.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 3, 2020  .. Fed. Cir.:  Wynkoop v. Defense  ..  Wynkoop began working as a program analyst at the United States Department of Defense (DoD) in June 2015.     On August 13, 2015, Ms. Wynkoop met with Carol Ensley, Chief of Acquisition Management. Ms. Ensley informed Ms. Wynkoop that several employees had expressed concerns about Ms. Aviles-Wynkoop’s behavior, which they characterized as “inappropriate, overly aggressive, and unprofessional.”     DoD placed her on administrative leave. In October 2015, DoD proposed to terminate Ms. Wynkoop’s employment, and after receiving her response, DoD terminated her employment in January 2016. Ms. Wynkoop appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 3, 2020  .. 10th Cir.:  Baca v. Army  ..  In October 2017, Mr. Baca was hired by the U.S. Army as a Supervisory Engineer, GS-13, and Chief of the Operations and Maintenance Division. In July 2018, Mr. Baca received a notice of proposed removal that charged him with: (1) conduct unbecoming a federal employee; (2) interfering with an agency investigation; (3) abusive, offensive, disgraceful or inflammatory language; and (4) lack of candor.     On September 18, 2018, Baca was removed from his position in the Directorate of Public Works at the U.S. Army White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. Mr. Baca sought review of this decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), asserting three affirmative defenses to his removal.     The MSPB rejected all of Mr. Baca’s defenses and affirmed his removal.     He appeals only the MSPB’s determination with respect to one of his affirmative defenses, that his firing was unlawful retaliation for whistleblowing in violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA).  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 3, 2020  .. D.D.C.:  Hunter v. WMATA  ..  Hunter (“Plaintiff”) was an employee of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (“WMATA”) from May 20, 2013 through the time of his termination, on October 14, 2017. Plaintiff filed suit against WMATA under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act alleging claims of gender discrimination and retaliation. Plaintiff also raises separate claims of breach of contract, negligent supervision, defamation, and for certain whistleblower violations.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 2, 2020  .. 7th Cir.:  Demkovich v. St. Andrew  ..  The First Amendment prohibits enforcement of federal employment discrimination statutes against decisions of churches and other religious organizations to hire or fire their “ministerial employees.”     This interlocutory appeal presents a question about extending this exemption beyond hiring and firing decisions: should the constitutional exemption be extended to categorically bar all hostile environment discrimination claims by ministerial employees, even where there is no challenge to tangible employment actions like hiring and firing?     Our answer is no.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 2, 2020  .. 6th Cir.:  Khalaf v. Ford  ..  The jury found that (1) Dr. Khalaf was neither demoted nor terminated by Ford because of his race or national origin; (2) neither Ford as a corporate entity nor Zhou subjected him to a hostile work environment, but Dr. Khalaf’s subordinates at Ford had done so (based on national origin or race), and so had Fowler (based on national origin, but not race); and (3) Dr. Khalaf was subjected to retaliatory demotion by Ford and Fowler, retaliatory placement on a PEP by Zhou, and retaliatory termination by Ford alone, but was not subjected to retaliatory placement on a PEP by Fowler or Ford or retaliatory termination by Fowler or Zhou.     For the collective actions of all defendants, the jury awarded Dr. Khalaf $1.7 million in pension and retirement losses and $100,000 in emotional-distress damages. For the actions of Ford only, the jury awarded Dr. Khalaf $15 million in punitive damages. The district court ...  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       Sep 2, 2020  .. N.M.C.C.A.:  U.S. v. Torres  ..  Appellant and three other Marines, all of whom worked in a supply warehouse at 3d Marine Raider Battalion, pleaded guilty in accordance with their pretrial agreements to charges involving stealing military property from that warehouse and selling it to a local pawnshop. Appellant’s crimes consisted of stealing military equipment including multi-tools, knives, lights, and GPS wristwatches on divers occasions and selling that material to a local pawn- shop. In exchange, Appellant admitted to receiving approximately $1,050.00.     He also admitted to helping his cohorts load additional military proper- ty—scores of rifle buttstocks and buttstock subassembly parts valued at $27,566.40—into a personally owned vehicle so that those cohorts could sell that property to the pawnshop. For this action, he pleaded guilty as an aider and abettor under Article 77, UCMJ, to stealing military property valued at greater than $500 and to wrongfully selling that same property. Finally, admitting that he was aware that his cohorts had stolen other military property from the warehouse, Appellant admitted to being derelict in the performance of his duties for not reporting those thefts.     At sentencing, the Government presented portions of Appellant’s military personnel file, reports of the investigation into his misconduct, evidence indicating the cost of the stolen military property, and the testimony of the Battalion Supply Officer.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 31, 2020  .. A.F.C.C.A.:  U.S. (AirForce) v. Perkins  ..  THANK YOU, FOR YOUR SERVICE. ..  From 2009 until 2016, Appellant was a Special Agent with the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI). In 2013, while he was deployed, Appellant began communicating with KS. Appellant had known KS since they were in middle school together. At some point following his deployment, Appellant and KS began to casually see each other, but did not have an exclusive relationship.     In July 2016, Appellant married SP. Subsequently, in August 2016, KS learned through a friend that Appellant was now possibly married, and reached out to him via text message and phone calls to confront him about his relationship with SP. In response, Appellant created an email account using the name of his spouse and—posing as SP—exchanged multiple emails with KS. In those emails, Appellant directed KS not to contact either of them anymore. At the same time, using his own cellphone, Appellant also exchanged text messages with KS and in a series of messages on or about 15 August 2016, Appellant told KS, “I too am a lawyer whore,” and “[y]ou are f**king with the wrong one.” The messages also contained KS’s first name, middle name, and social security number, followed by “[d]o not f**k with me!” That same day, feeling threatened, KS wrote a final email to Appellant requesting that he stop all contact with her. On 16 August 2016, believing that her personal information was breached through government access, KS reported these text messages to civilian law enforcement authorities..  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 28, 2020  .. FLRA:  FAA v. AFGE  ..  Bargaining-unit employees of the Agency (the employees), who worked in accounts receivable, were notified by the Agency that they would be moving to accounts payable after some noticed their names were moved already in the facility directory.     The employees heard unconfirmed reports that the Agency would use contractors to accomplish the accounts-receivable work. Thereafter, the Agency responded to the Union’s inquires by stating that some employees had been moved into accounts receivable, but there would be a meeting to discuss the inquires. The employees were then ordered to train the contractors to do all the work in accounts receivable.     The Union filed the grievance alleging that the Agency violated the parties’ agreement by failing to notify and bargain with the Union when it replaced all the employees with contractors. The parties could not resolve the grievance and it proceeded to arbitration.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 27, 2020  .. 6th Cir.:  Lowe v. Walbro  ..  Walbro describes itself as “a global market leader in engine management and fuel systems for the outdoor power equipment, recreational, marine, and personal transportation markets.     Lowe, who was born in 1958, began working for Walbro as a stock handler at the age of 18. Over the course of his 41-year career with the company, he was promoted on several occasions. At the time that he was fired, he held the title of Area Manager, a position that he assumed in 2014.     In June 2018, Kenneth Lowe was fired from his job at Walbro LLC. Lowe was 60 years old at the time and had worked at Walbro for more than four decades. He responded by filing this lawsuit against Walbro, alleging that the company had discharged him because of his age.     The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Walbro.     For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 26, 2020  .. Fed. Cir.:  Harris v. SEC  ..  Ms. Harris petitions for review of a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board upholding her performance-based removal by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).     Ms. Harris was the Branch Chief of the Continuity of Operations (COOP) branch, a division of the SEC’s Office of Support Operations (OSO) in Washington, D.C. The COOP branch is responsible for ensuring that the SEC can continue performing essential functions in the event of an emergency, such as a natural disaster.     In February 2018, Ms. Harris was removed from the agency for “unacceptable performance” of her duties, pursuant to chapter 43 of title 5.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 26, 2020  .. 11th Cir.:  Henderson v. Birmingham  ..  Henderson has worked as a police officer for the City since March 2007. His claims here arise from a series of events that occurred in 2017 and 2018.     On January 9, 2017, Henderson was dispatched from his post at the North Precinct to assist someone who called to report a theft in Bessemer.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 26, 2020  .. 5th Cir.:  Simmons v. UBS  ..  Simmons was employed by Prelle Financial Group as a third-party wholesaler of life-insurance products to clients of UBS Financial Services. Simmons frequently worked out of UBS’s offices.     Simmons’s daughter, Jo Aldridge, was a UBS employee who submitted an internal complaint of pregnancy discrimination and filed a charge with the EEOC. Aldridge eventually resigned and settled her claims.     In the months that followed, Simmons’s third-party relationship with UBS deteriorated. Allegedly in retaliation for his daughter’s complaints, UBS revoked Simmons’s right of access to the UBS offices and then eventually forbade him from doing business with its clients.     That effectively ended Simmons’s employment at Prelle Financial, and he left. Simmons sued, among others, UBS. He theorized that the company “retaliated against his daughter by taking adverse actions against him.”  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 24, 2020  .. FLRA:  IBEW v. DOE  ..  The Union requests that we reconsider our decision in IBEW, Local 1002 (IBEW)[1] and stay implementation of that decision. In IBEW, the Union filed a petition for review (petition) concerning the negotiability of two proposals.     The Authority determined that, because the Union’s proposals contained only minor modifications from those previously declared nonnegotiable, the Union failed to file a timely petition.     Accordingly, the Authority dismissed the petition.     In a motion for reconsideration (motion), the Union argues that the Authority erred in its legal conclusions.     The Union also requests that the Authority stay IBEW while the Authority considers its motion.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 24, 2020  .. Fed. Cir.:  Dyer v. Air Force  ..  Mr. Leonard Dyer petitions for review of a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”) affirming the West Virginia adjutant general’s termination of Mr. Dyer from his position as a dual-status military technician with the U.S. Air Force.     The WV adjutant general terminated his dual-status position because he no longer met the military membership requirement of his employment.     Mr. Dyer appealed the termination to the Board, arguing that he was not provided the due process he is entitled to under Title 5.     A threshold issue in this petition for review is whether the Board had jurisdiction to review Mr. Dyer’s termination from his dual-status position as a result of his separation from the WVANG.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 21, 2020  .. D.D.C.:  FLEOA v. Weichert (OPM)  ..  This case concerns the 2016 decision of Defendants, the Director of the United States Office of Personnel Management and the United State Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”), to implement a policy which resulted in the reduction of supplemental annuity payments for many retired law enforcement officers who are divorced. Plaintiff, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (“FLEOA”), represents 27,000 current and retired federal law enforcement officers and challenges the 2016 supplemental annuity payment policy (“Policy”) under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 20, 2020  .. 11th Cir.:  Vaughn v. Fedex  ..  Vaughn has been a truck driver since the late 1980s. In 1992, Vaughn started driving for American Freightways, which later became part of FedEx.     On the night of September 26, 2012, Vaughn left Decatur, Georgia for his regular route to Atlanta. He began having “thoughts of craziness” as he was driving.     On the way back to Decatur the following morning, Vaughn experienced hallucinations and paranoia.     Vaughn called a friend and said he was going to die that day. Vaughn eventually made it home.     He told his wife he was going to die that day, too. Vaughn then went to his bedroom, put his handgun in his mouth and pulled the trigger.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 20, 2020  .. 9th Cir.:  Hardesty v.  Sacramento  ..  The jury found Defendants liable for violating Plaintiffs’ substantive due process rights and awarded $105 million in compensatory damages against the County and Individual Defendants jointly and severally, and $1,775,000 in punitive damages against the Individual Defendants.     Defendants argue the verdict is not supported by substantial evidence, the court erred by failing to offer a proposed jury instruction regarding campaign finance, the damages are excessive, and the Individual Defendants are entitled to immunity.  ..  DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 20, 2020  .. 5th Cir.:  Aguillard v. Louisiana College  ..  Louisiana College is a private Baptist college located in Pineville, Louisiana and accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (Southern Association).     Aguillard became president of Louisiana College on January 15, 2005. On July 31, 2014, Aguillard stepped down as president of Louisiana College for health reasons, but he continued to be employed as a tenured faculty member and president emeritus.     Aguillard’s relationship with his successor was, in a word, contentious. Ultimately, Aguillard was fired for cause on March 31, 2016.         After he was fired, Joe Aguillard sent misconduct allegations to the college’s accrediting body. Those accusations prompted Louisiana College to sue Aguillard in state court for defamation. Aguillard countered by suing the college in federal court, alleging—among other things— that the defamation suit violated anti-retaliation provisions found in the Americans With Disabilities Act.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 19, 2020  .. D.D.C.:  Clinton v. Perry  ..  Rita Clinton brings this action against Dan Brouillette in his official capacity as the Secretary of the United States Department of Energy (“the Department”).    She alleges that while working for the Department she was subjected to a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 19, 2020  .. CCA:  Kuigoua v. CCH  ..  In 2010, plaintiff, a man of Cameroonian descent, began working as a registered nurse with the California Department of Corrections to provide health care services to prison inmates.     In the present lawsuit, plaintiff asserted that CCHCS subjected him to adverse employment actions beginning in late 2013 and wrongful termination in May 2015 as a result of gender discrimination.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦        August 19, 2020  .. CCA:  De Martin v. La Jolla  ..  Plaintiff accepted a position with Defendant on March 14, 2016.     One week later, Plaintiff, emailed his supervisor, Kimberly Bieder, to request religious leave on Good Friday, March 25.     Being “a bit taken back [sic] by him asking for a day” off after only a week on the job, Bieder called Plaintiff an “ ‘idiot,’ ” a “ ‘lazy ass,’ ” and a “ ‘slacker’ ” and said in “loud and mean tones” during the conversation: “ ‘I saw your request. . . . It seems kind of unreasonable, kind of out of place for you to be requesting time off work so soon. . . . How could you put me in this position?     The next day, March 24, Plaintiff told Kimberly Bieder that he “ ‘didn’t appreciate a lot of the things’ ” that Bieder had said about his request for religious leave .     James Rolke (Defendant’s Vice President of Research and Development) overheard Plaintiff's comment to and Bieder.     Within minutes, Rolke instructed human resources to have Plaintiff terminated at the end of the workday.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 19, 2020  .. MCA:  Wiedner v. Ferrellgas  ..  Wiedner was employed by Ferrellgas, Inc., as a senior database administrator from February 28, 2011, until his dismissal from the company on October 25, 2016.     On January 2, 2017, Wiedner filed a Charge of Discrimination ("Complaint") against "Ferrellgas" with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights ("MCHR").     Wiedner had a chronic pain condition which, based on a doctor's recommendation, resulted in Ferrellgas granting him the reasonable accommodation of his working from home.     However, following approved FMLA leave from April 25, 2016, through July 25, 2016, Wiedner's supervisor, Phillip Legate, began harassing him regarding the work accommodations he was receiving.     Wiedner's department manager, Aravind Sreedharan , informed him he could no longer work from home and he suffered harassment from Legate creating a hostile working environment.     Wiedner filed a formal complaint with Ferrellgas, Inc.'s Employee Relations department.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 18, 2020  .. NJSC:  Fox v. DGMB  ..  Plaintiffs Ann Fox and Theresa Campana appeal the April 12, 2019 summary judgment order dismissing their complaint with prejudice.     In May 2016, plaintiffs Fox and Campana filed a complaint in the Law Division against defendants DGMB Casino (DGMB), Barbara Hulsizer and Mark Sachais (defendants).     Plaintiff alleged a violation of CEPA (count one); a hostile work environment under LAD based on gender, sexual orientation and age, and unlawful retaliation (count two); and the negligent infliction of emotional distress (count three).     She requested compensatory and punitive damages for each count and an award of counsel fees and costs. Plaintiff Campana alleged a loss of consortium (count four), seeking damages, attorney's fees and costs. Defendants' answer included separate defenses.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 18, 2020  .. N.M.C.C.A.:  U.S. (Marines) v. Lewis  ..  The Few, The Proud, The Marines ..  While Cpl Harris was taking a shower, Appellant entered his room. Appellant then entered the bathroom and began pulling open the shower curtain, startling Cpl Harris, who stopped the curtain from being opened fully.     Appellant asked permission to join Cpl Harris in the shower.     He asked Appellant to leave, and Appellant left the bathroom.     In late-May or early-June 2016, Cpl Harris and Appellant were at a party together at an off-base residence where they had been drinking alcohol late into the night.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       DOJ OIG INVESTIGATIONS :    (1)  Investigative Summary: Findings of Misconduct by a BOP Executive Assistant Who Engaged in an Inappropriate Relationship With a BOP Contractor Who Had Been a Federal Inmate, Failed to Cooperate in Our Investigation, Destroyed Evidence, & Related Misconduct.   summary       (2)  Investigative Summary: Findings of Misconduct by a then Bureau of Prisons Manager for Harassing and Threatening Employees at a Training Seminar.   summary

♦       August 17, 2020  .. FLRA:  NWSO v. NOAA  ..  The parties have been attempting to negotiate a successor agreement since 2015. After utilizing the services of the Panel to resolve their ground-rules-negotiation impasse in 2016, the parties began substantive negotiations on a successor agreement in early 2017.     The parties bargained for over two years and engaged in 146 bargaining sessions – including fifty-five sessions with three mediators – but reached agreement on only four articles.     On December 19, 2019, the Agency requested the Panel’s assistance, and, on March 12, 2020, the Panel asserted jurisdiction over an impasse related to forty-two articles.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 17, 2020  .. D.D.C.:  Bozgoz v. James (VA)  ..  Mr. Bozgoz is a former employee of the VA, and he claims that he was denied reasonable accommodations and discriminated against when a request for overtime was denied in January of 2018 and during the events that ensued thereafter.     Mrs. Bozgoz acts as her husband’s “Americans with Disabilities Act Representative,” and in that role, she has pursued administrative relief on Mr. Bozgoz’s behalf.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 17, 2020  .. 10th Cir.:  Hickey v. Brennan  ..  Hickey was employed as a letter carrier for the USPS. On September 30, 2017, she pushed one of her co-workers while they were both on the workroom floor. On October 20, 2017, the USPS issued Hickey a notice of removal from employment for “[u]nacceptable [c]onduct.”     Six days later, on October 26, 2017, Hickey filed a grievance to challenge her removal pursuant to the procedures set forth in a collective bargaining agreement between the USPS and her union, the National Association of Letter Carriers.     In her grievance, she alleged that the USPS’s decision to terminate her employment was due to her supervisors’ discriminatory animus and the agency’s related failure to accommodate her disability of deafness. Hickey’s removal became effective on December 5, 2017.     The USPS and the union were not able to reach a resolution on the grievance, and it was submitted to an arbitrator on December 20, 2017. On May 3, 2018, the arbitrator denied the grievance, finding that the USPS had just cause for her removal.     On March 29, 2018, Hickey contacted an EEO counselor. A few months after that, she filed a formal EEO complaint of discrimination, which was dismissed by the agency on the ground that Hickey’s arguments amounted to an inappropriate collateral attack on the union grievance procedure.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 14, 2020  .. 9th Cir.:  Nguyen v. UC  ..  Nguyen, a former UCI engineering professor, asserted employment discrimination and retaliation claims against the Regents and the individual Defendants.     Nguyen alleged that the individual Defendants denied him tenure because of his sexual orientation, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the Regents’ conduct amounted to deliberate indifference to these acts, in violation of Title IX.     Nguyen also appeals the district court’s award of attorney’s fees to Defendants.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 14, 2020  .. FLRA:  AFGE v. VA  ..  The Union filed a grievance challenging two reprimands and a five-day suspension that the Agency imposed on the grievant. The parties were unable to resolve the grievance, and it proceeded to arbitration. The issues before the Arbitrator were: “Did [the Agency] violate the [parties’] [c]ollective[b]argaining [a]greement . . . when it reprimanded and suspended the [g]rievant? If so, what is the remedy?”     At arbitration, the Union requested, and the Agency agreed, that the Arbitrator retain jurisdiction over the issue of attorney fees for consideration after issuance of the merits award.     The Arbitrator found that the Agency had not met its burden with regard to the two reprimands or the five‑day suspension. Thus, she rescinded the reprimands and mitigated the suspension to a reprimand. As a remedy, the Arbitrator awarded the grievant backpay, but concluded that “[n]o attorney’s fees are awarded.”   The Arbitrator did not provide any explanation for that conclusion.     On February 21, 2020, the Union filed exceptions to the award, and, on March 20, 2020, the Agency filed an opposition to the Union’s exceptions.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 13, 2020  .. FLRA:  HHS v. NTEU  ..  This case involves a grievance filed by the Union alleging that HHS violated the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute and the parties’ agreement when it failed to authorize the Union’s email communications to bargaining-unit employees.     The arbitration concerned two grievances over two emails HHS declined to authorize.     HHS only raised an exception to the Arbitrator’s finding concerning the second email.    Therefore, we will limit the background to the relevant email at issue.     As relevant here, the Union submitted an email for Agency approval on January 17, 2019.    The email contained information on back pay for furloughed employees, government funding for fiscal year 2019, and the upcoming federal holiday in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK), and a link to Standard Form (SF) 1187.    HHS disapproved the email because the attachments did not concern representational matters as required by the parties’ agreement.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 13, 2020  .. FLRA:  USDA v. AFGE  ..  During bargaining over a successor collective-bargaining agreement, the parties failed to reach agreement on several articles, and the Agency requested the assistance of the Federal Service Impasses Panel (the Panel). After the Panel issued a decision and order, the Union filed a motion asking the Authority to stay the Panel’s order. We deny the Union’s request because the Union has not exhibited that a stay is appropriate under the circumstances of this case.     The parties failed to agree on eighteen articles while negotiating a successor collective-bargaining agreement, and the Agency requested Panel assistance. After resolving two of those articles in mediation, both parties submitted arguments on the remaining articles to the Panel. Before the Panel, the Union also contended that the Panel lacked jurisdiction. The Panel rejected that contention and issued USDA, resolving the sixteen disputed articles.     On June 2, 2020, the Union filed a motion to stay (the motion) the Panel’s order. The Agency requested leave to file, and did file, an opposition to the motion on June 8.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 12, 2020  .. 7th Cir.:  U.S. v. Gamble  ..  On November 9, 2017, defendant Latasha Gamble robbed a branch of Chase Bank in Chicago, a branch where she had worked until three months earlier.     Only two Chase employees were working at the time of the robbery, Kelly Green and Lesley Rendon. Gamble entered the bank wearing a disguise and waited for a few customers to leave.     When they did, Gamble pulled out a gun and pushed Green to the ground as Green opened a secured door to leave the lobby. Gamble then pointed the gun at Green and ordered her to open the bank’s vault.     When Green said that both employees were needed to open the vault, Gamble grabbed Rendon by the hair, pressed the gun against the back of her head, threatened to shoot her, and brought her to the vault. At trial, Rendon testified that the gun felt cold and made a clicking noise when it was against her head. Once Green and Rendon had opened the vault, Gamble ordered them to put their heads down and again threatened to shoot them.     Gamble took over $126,000 from the vault and left the bank.     Despite Gamble’s attempts at disguise, both Green and Rendon had recognized her.     FBI agents arrested Gamble several hours later when she showed up for work at another Chase branch, oddly enough.         Defendant Latasha Gamble was found guilty of armed bank robbery and sentenced to 151 months in prison.         She challenges her sentence on two grounds.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 12, 2020  .. 7th Cir.:  Morris v. BNSF  ..  Ron Morris worked for nine years as a train conductor for Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway.    The company fired him after he committed two speeding infractions during a single shift.    Morris, who is African-American, invoked Title VII and brought suit to challenge his termination, alleging that BNSF punished him more severely than non-black employees who committed similar safety violations.    His case proceeded to trial and a jury found in his favor.    BNSF challenges the district court’s decisions at every stage of the case, from the viability of Morris’s theory of discrimination and sufficiency of his evidence to discovery rulings and remedies.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 12, 2020  .. 9th Cir.:  Hukman v. Southwest  ..  Plaintiff Sheida Hukman appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to defendant Southwest Airlines.    The district court properly dismissed all of Hukman’s Title VII claims because she failed to file her complaint within ninety days of receiving her right-to-sue letter. Hukman received the letter from the EEOC in April 2017 but did not file her complaint until November. We thus affirm the summary judgment grant on the first, second, fourth, fifth and sixth causes of action set forth in the complaint.    Alternatively, the district court properly granted summary judgment on these claims because Hukman either failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or failed to demonstrate that Southwest’s proffered reasons for terminating her within her 180-day probationary hiring period were pretextual.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦        OPM : Paid Parental Leave For Federal Employees Interim Regulations   chcoc.gov

♦       August 11, 2020  .. CCA:  BFPS v. Superior  ..  Daisy Arias suffered sustained, egregious sexual harassment for most of the time she was employed by defendant and petitioner, Blue Fountain Pools & Spas Inc.     The primary culprit was defendant and petitioner, Sean Lagrave, a salesman who worked in the same office as Arias. Arias says Lagrave did everything from repeatedly asking her for dates to grabbing her buttocks to praising his own sexual prowess to describing his sexual conquests to confronting her with smartphone photographs of himself engaging in sex acts with other women. This list is not complete.     Arias complained about Lagrave’s conduct repeatedly over the course of her employment, but things came to a head on April 21, 2017. On that day, Lagrave yelled at Arias in front of coworkers, used gender slurs, and then physically assaulted her, bumping her chest with his own. Arias called the police and later left work.     Arias told the owner, defendant and petitioner, Farhad Farhadian, she wasn’t comfortable returning to work with Lagrave. Farhadian did nothing initially, refused to remove Lagrave, then terminated Arias’s health insurance, and finally told Arias to pick up her final paycheck. Though Farhadian claimed Arias had quit, she says she was fired.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 11, 2020  .. 3rd Cir.:  Wright v. Providence  ..  Ms. Wright was fired from her job as a Licensed Practical Nurse (“LPN”) after getting into a verbal altercation at the nursing home where she worked.     In response, Wright, who is disabled within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and who had returned from medical leave pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) less than three months before her firing, sued her now-former employer, Providence Care Center LLC (“Providence”).     As relevant to this appeal, she alleges that the real reasons Providence let her go were disability discrimination and retaliation for exercising her rights under the ADA, PHRA and FMLA.     In addition, she says she was subjected to a hostile work environment because of her disabilities, which is also a violation of the ADA.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 10, 2020  .. D.D.C.:  Simelton v. Georgetown  ..  Tammi Coakley-Simelton brings this action against her employer, Georgetown University, and three of its employees. She alleges that the defendants retaliated and discriminated against her based on her race.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 10, 2020  .. 10th Cir.:  Robinson v. Barrett  ..  Robinson, an African-American, worked at Tinker Air Force Base, OK.     Until her termination, Robinson alleges that Lewis subjected her to discrimination and harassment, culminating in Robinson filing an informal complaint with the EEOC.     Robinson alleges that after Lewis was notified of the informal complaint, she took the following four retaliatory actions against her :  ..  DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 10, 2020  .. Fed. Cir.:  Freeland v. DHS  ..  In the course of the background investigation, an OPM investigator interviewed Mr. Freeland after obtaining additional information regarding Mr. Freeland’s separation from ACHRA.     During this interview, Mr. Freeland initially denied any issues with ACHRA until being confronted by the interviewer directly that ACHRA had proposed a disciplinary action against him. Mr. Freeland also initially denied the sexual harassment allegation until he was directly confronted by the inter- viewer with the allegation.     After completing the investigation, OPM issued its findings to the Agency’s Office of Security and Integrity, Investigations Division (OSI).     OSI sent its review and excerpts from the OPM background investigation to the Chief of the HROC.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 7, 2020  .. Fed. Cir.:  Jenkins v. Transportation  ..  Jenkins was employed by the FAA for nearly 30 years until her removal in March 2018. During her final year of employment, she served as the Chief of Staff to the FAA’s Associate Administrator for Human Resources.     In 2017, one of Jenkins’s subordinates, Sharon Bartley, complained to the FAA Accountability Board that Jenkins had created a hostile work environment.     In support of her complaint, Bartley provided the Accountability Board with a number of personal cell phone text message exchanges that she had with Jenkins.     Many of the text messages were disparaging toward Jenkins’s colleagues, including senior officials at the FAA. Moreover, many of the messages con- tained derogatory comments about the race and gender of Jenkins’s colleagues.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 7, 2020  .. FLRA:  Air Force v. AFGE  ..  The grievant worked as a firefighter at the March Air Reserve Base Fire Department. At some point, “perhaps beginning in 2017,” the Agency began a command-directed investigation into issues at the fire department relating to possible bullying and conflicts between employees.    The grievant was interviewed as part of the investigation along with several other members of the department.    The grievant was also a union steward. On December 6, 2018, in a separate and unrelated matter, the grievant left the fire station to conduct Union business without getting permission from his immediate supervisor or entering his official time on his timecard.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 7, 2020  .. 11th Cir.:  McConico v. Tampa  ..  Benita McConico appeals the district court’s decision on her claims of racial discrimination under Civil Rights Act and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) concerning her termination.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 7, 2020  .. 7th Cir.:  Pierri v. Medline  ..  Frank Pierri was a chemist for Medline Industries.    Initially, he did well at the company, but problems arose after he asked for accommodations to enable him to take care of his ailing grandfather.    Medline was receptive, and it ultimately gave him limited time off for this purpose under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).    Pierri asserts that his supervisor then became so hostile to him that he needed personal time off because of the stress.    He left on FMLA leave and never returned. Medline eventually terminated his employment, causing Pierri to sue the company.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 6, 2020  .. Fed. Cir.:  Kent v. MSPB (IRS)  ..  Mr. Kent was appointed to the position of Contact Rep- resentative at the IRS on July 26, 2004.    Then, on May 27, 2005, Mr. Kent’s employment was terminated for “leave and AWOL issues.    Fourteen years later, Mr. Kent filed an appeal with the Board contesting his termination.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 6, 2020  .. 10th Cir.:  Jensen v. West Jordan  ..  Plaintiff-appellant Aaron Jensen sued defendant-appellees West Jordan City and Robert Shober for Title VII retaliation, First Amendment retaliation, malicious prosecution, and breach of contract.     At trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Jensen on all his claims and awarded Two Million, Seven Hundred Seventy Thousand dollars ($2,770,000) in damages.     Because the district court concluded that Title VII’s statutory damages cap applied, the court reduced the total amount of the award to $344,000.     Both parties appealed.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 6, 2020  .. 9th Cir.:  Simmons v. Safeway  ..  We have jurisdiction and we reverse and remand for further proceedings.     The district court erred in holding that no reasonable jury could conclude that Andrew Shaffer’s conduct was sufficiently “severe or pervasive” and that Haggen failed to take “prompt and effective remedial action.”     To establish a hostile work environment under Title VII and the Washington Law Against Discrimination, an employee must show that “     1)   [she] was subjected to verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature,     2)   this conduct was unwelcome, and     3)   this conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.”     4)   “The working environment must both subjectively and objectively be perceived as abusive, and the objective analysis is done from the perspective of a reasonable woman.”     5)   Additionally, “an employee must show that her employer is liable for the conduct that created the environment.”     We have jurisdiction and we reverse and remand for further proceedings.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 5, 2020  .. D.D.C.:  Tennant v. DC  ..  Plaintiff Denise Tennant, a former Probation Officer in the Court Social Services Division (“CSSD”) of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, has sued her former employer under [the Civil Rights Act]; the ADA and the FMLA, alleging discrimination and retaliation based on sex and her disabilities, and interference with her FMLA rights in a five-count complaint.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 5, 2020  .. A.F.C.C.A.:  U.S. v. Robertson  ..  In 2008, AO arrived at Offutt Air Force Base (AFB), Nebraska, where she was assigned to an aircraft maintenance unit. AO became part of a close-knit group of maintainers, including Appellant.    Although AO was the only female member of the core group of friends, she was treated and behaved as “one of the guys.” Crude references to male and female genitalia and other sexual banter were common within the group.    Beginning in approximately August 2010, while AO was going through a divorce with her then-husband, for about six months AO lived in the house Appellant and SSgt MM shared. On one occasion, when SSgt MM was away on temporary duty, AO decided to lie down on SSgt MM’s bed to sleep, instead of in her own room.    Appellant got in the bed and began “cuddling behind” her.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 5, 2020  .. 5th Cir.:  Hauser v. Schneider  ..  Hauser was a project manager from 2010 until his termination in 2017. In this role, Hauser supervised engineering projects related to safety systems and industrial process controls; he also managed customer relationships. Around 2016, when Hauser was 62 years old, his supervisor James Austin began inquiring about Hauser’s retirement plans. Hauser said he had no plans to retire.     In early 2017, customers began reporting problems with Hauser’s performance. Two customers complained to James Weber, a client sales executive, about Hauser’s delaying and poorly executing projects. One of those customers told Weber they planned to not work with Schneider in the future. A third customer threatened to pull their business after seeing an email in which Hauser described the customer’s invoicing as “chicanery.” Austin verbally warned Hauser about his unprofessional communications, but his performance did not improve.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 4, 2020  ..  NO NEW CASES TO POST TODAY

♦       DOJ OIG INVESTIGATIONS :    (1)  Findings of Misconduct by a then Federal Bureau of Investigation Unit Chief for Approving a Subordinate’s Outside Employment Form Knowing that the Form Contained Misleading Information and Dereliction of Supervisory Responsibilities.   summary

♦       August 3, 2020  .. 11th Cir.:  Gilliam v. VA  ..  Gilliam was employed by the VA as a police officer at an outpatient clinic. According to Gilliam, his troubles with the VA began in late 2011 after police chief Robert Shogren became aware of Gilliam’s romantic relationship with Lizabeth Marsh, who worked as a medical support assistant at the clinic.     Marsh’s then-husband had discovered text messages between Gilliam and Marsh and complained to the VA that Gilliam and Marsh were having an affair and were having sex at the clinic.     Shogren proposed removing him from service based on four charges of misconduct:   (1)   placing his supervisor in a chokehold on two    separate occasions;   (2)   yelling and using profanity during a verbal altercation with Marsh;   (3)   kissing Marsh in the office hallway; and   (4)   having sex with Marsh at the clinic during Gilliam’s duty hours.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

♦       August 3, 2020  .. 6th Cir.:  Funk v. Lansing  ..  Plaintiff Charles Funk is an African American man who worked for Defendant City of Lansing, Michigan’s Police Department from 1997 until his resignation in 2016.    Funk brings a failure to promote claim and a constructive discharge claim under Title VII. He also alleges retaliation claims in violation of the First Amendment and Title VII.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)