ONLINE SINCE 1995

P  E  R  M  E  R  I  C  A  .   C O   M



D E C I S I O N S
MSPB (P)*
MSPB (N)*
FLRA
FSIP
EEOC
VA OIG


WISH YOU COULD GO BACK "ONE MORE TIME" ?

THE WORLD WOULD BE A MILLION TIMES BETTER
IF LOVERS WERE GUARANTEED "ONE MORE TIME"
FOR CLOSURE.


CLEVELAND
SOUL


Gerald Levert - Closure (Rare Live Version)
(Intro By Arsenio Hall)



Friday, Feb 27, 2015



   Feb 27, 2015  ...  MSPB:  Kraft v. Transportation (FAA)  ...   FAA HAD NO LEGAL "NEXUS" BASIS TO FIRE ME FOR SOLICITING A FAKE 14 YEAR OLD FOR SEX   ...   Prior to his removal, the appellant was employed as an Air Traffic Control Specialist in Austin, Texas. The Air Traffic Manager at that facility proposed the appellant’s removal on a charge of criminal conduct.      As described in the proposal notice, the appellant on two occasions engaged in online communication with individuals he believed were 13- or 14-year-old girls, which included not only sexually explicit conversation, but also his engaging in lewd conduct via webcam.      On the second occasion, when he believed he also was communicating with the girl’s mother, the appellant made arrangements to meet both of them.      He was arrested when he arrived at the designated location, later pleaded guilty to Attempted Online Solicitation of a Minor under the Texas Penal Code, and was sentenced to 10 years deferred adjudication, 90 days in the county jail, and a fine.      The Air Traffic Manager cited the agency’s Standards of Conduct, which state that employees are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that will not adversely reflect on the agency’s ability to discharge its mission, cause embarrassment to the agency, or cause the public or managers to question the employee’s reliability, judgment, and trustworthiness.      He stated that the appellant’s criminal conduct was serious and cast grave doubt on his judgment, trustworthiness, integrity, and reliability.           The appellant challenges that nexus was established between his off-duty misconduct and the efficiency of the service and that the removal penalty was reasonable.  ...   MSPB DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)


   Feb 26, 2015  ...   DEAR WHITE HOUSE: They All Laughed And Bet That You Wouldn't Have The Balls To Veto The KeyStone Pipeline Bill. I Feared The Same Too. They Will Show You More Respect Now: Since They Know That You're Ballsy. Keep It Up.

   Feb 24, 2015  ...  C.A.A.F.:  United States v. Gutierrez  ...   APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED FOR AGGRAVATED ASSAULT STEMMING FROM HIS FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THAT HE HAD HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS (HIV) PRIOR TO ENGAGING IN OTHERWISE CONSENSUAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY WITH MULTIPLE PARTNERS.   ...   Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault encompassing unprotected oral sex, protected vaginal sex, and unprotected vaginal sex.  ...   In the case of protected vaginal sex, we have previously concluded that “[t]he fact that a male uses a condom during sexual intercourse is not a defense to [aggravated] assault. ”     Contrary to his pleas, a military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant of offenses including aggravated assault, in violation of Article 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 928 (2012). He was sentenced to confinement for eight years, a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade.  ...  Here, he appeals the decision.    COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)


   Feb 24, 2015  ...  MSPB:  Bowman v. SBA  ...   SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION REMOVED THE APPELLANT FROM HIS SUPERVISORY CONSTRUCTION ANALYST POSITION BASED ON CHARGES OF EXCESSIVE UNAUTHORIZED LEAVE AND FAILURE TO FOLLOW PROPER LEAVE REQUESTING PROCEDURES.   ...   The agency petitioned for review of an initial decision that mitigated its removal action to a 30-day suspension without pay.   ...   MSPB DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)


   Feb 23, 2015  ...  4th Cir:  EEOC v. Freeman  ...   THE COURTS ARE GETTING SICK AND DAMNED TIRED OF EEOC'S CONTINUED GROSS INCOMPETENCE ... HERE, ONCE AGAIN, THE COURT SMACKS DOWN EEOC FOR "SLIPSHOD WORK, FAULTY ANALYSIS, AND STATISTICAL SLEIGHT OF HAND".  ...  Freeman is a provider of integrated services for expositions, conventions, and corporate events, with offices in major cities throughout the United States.    In 2001, Freeman began conducting background checks on its job applicants, which the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleges had an unlawful disparate impact on black and male job applicants.      The case proceeded to discovery. The EEOC produced a report by Kevin Murphy, an industrial/organizational psychologist, and one by Beth Huebner, an associate professor of criminology, which purported to replicate Murphy’s results.      Most troubling, the district court found a “mind-boggling” number of errors and unexplained discrepancies in Murphy’s database.      For example, looking at a subset of 41 individuals for whom the EEOC is seeking back pay, 29 had at least one error or omission. Seven were missing from the database altogether. Seven were listed in the database without a race code, “one was incorrectly coded as passing the criminal background check, two were incorrectly coded as failing the criminal background check, one ha[d] an incorrect race code, five ha[d] incorrect gender codes, nine [we]re listed twice and double-counted in Murphy’s results, and three who failed the credit check [we]re not coded with a credit check result.” The EEOC claims these errors were present in the original data, a contention dispelled by comparing the information from the discovery materials to Murphy’s database. It was in fact Murphy who introduced these errors into his own analysis.   ...   The sheer number of mistakes and omissions in Murphy’s analysis renders it “outside the range where experts might reasonably differ.”   ...   COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)


   Feb 23, 2015  ...  FedCir:  Kerner v. Interior  ...   AS A VETERAN, I FEEL THAT I SHOULD BE TREATED, NOT EQUAL, BUT BETTER THAN OTHER AMERICANS.  ...   In 2010, while Edward Kerner was an Evidence Custodian, GS-05, with the Department’s Fish and Wildlife Service, he applied for two vacancies within the Department: Wildlife Inspector, GS-09/11, and Wildlife Inspector, GS-11/11. Both positions were merit-promotion vacancies. Each required federal employee applicants to meet a time-in-grade requirement.      A federal civil service applicant must have completed at least fifty-two weeks of experience equivalent to GS-07 to be qualified for the GS - 09 position, and at least fifty-two weeks of experience equivalent to GS-09 to be qualified for the GS-11 position. 5 C.F.R. § 300.604. The vacancies also required one year of specialized experience in the federal civil service equivalent to GS-07 or GS-09, respectively. Mr. Kerner had no federal civil service experience at the GS-07 or GS-09 level and, therefore, did not meet the time-in-grade requirements. Accordingly, the Department determined that he did not qualify for either of the Wildlife Inspector vacancies.      Mr. Kerner now claims that the agency violated the Veterans Employment Opportunity Act (VEOA) by not crediting his military and non-federal service when determining whether he met the time-in-grade requirements.   ...   COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)


   Feb 20, 2015  ...  DCDC:  Dick v. Holder (FBI)  ...   THIS IS THE TALE OF HOW "AGENT DICK" ROSE UP TO STICK IT TO HIS DISCRIMINATORY FBI MANAGERS.  ...   Plaintiff Michael G. Dick (“Agent Dick”), a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), brought this action against the United States Attorney General and FBI Director (collectively, “Defendants”) in their official capacities. His first amended complaint alleges that he suffered discrete acts of discrimination and a hostile work environment because of his disability, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq., and because of his age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq. Agent Dick also claims that he suffered retaliation for his opposition to this alleged discrimination, in violation of both statutes. Defendants have moved to dismiss or for summary judgment on most of Agent Dick’s claims on the basis of failure to exhaust or failure to state a claim.   ...   COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)


   Feb 20, 2015  ...  MSPB:  Dwight v.Lundy v. Homeland  ...   HERE, HOMELAND APPEALS THE MSPB DECISION THAT REVERSED HIS REMOVAL FOR THESE REASONS:   ...   The appellant worked as a Materials Handler Leader for the agency’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) at a distribution center in Fort Worth, Texas.     In May 2010, the agency’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) began an investigation into allegations that another employee was stealing items from the distribution center for his personal use.     During the investigation, the employee informed the OIG that the appellant gave him permission to take items home from the distribution center for personal use including large plastic bags filled with rolls of toilet paper.     The OIG interviewed the appellant who provided a written sworn statement admitting to removing items.     The appellant allowed a search of his residence and the OIG discovered evidence, including tissue, soap, hand sanitizer, toilet paper and paper towels.     The OIG completed its investigation in 2011, and provided its findings to FEMA.         Also in 2010, an anonymous note was left under a door of the information technology server room alleging that two employees of the center, including the appellant, were accessing explicit web sites from their work computers.     The agency conducted an investigation into this allegation during 2010 and 2011.         In March 2012, the agency placed the appellant on administrative leave. On April 1, 2013, the agency proposed to remove the appellant based on three charges: (1) unauthorized removal of government property—ten specifications; (2) unauthorized possession of government property—nine specifications; and (3) misuse of government computer—two specifications. Accompanying the notice of proposed removal was the proposing official’s Douglas factors worksheet which identified three aggravating factors for penalty consideration: the nature and seriousness of the offense, the effect of the offense on the supervisor’s confidence in the appellant’s ability to perform assigned duties, and whether the appellant was on notice of the rules that were violated.         The appellant’s union submitted a written reply on his behalf. The deciding official sustained seven specifications for charge one, five specifications for charge two, and both specifications for charge three.     He reviewed the Douglas factors in an accompanying worksheet and identified seven of them to be aggravating factors in his decision.     He directed the appellant’s removal effective August 8, 2013, and advised him of his Board appeal rights.     The appellant initiated a Board appeal challenging his removal.   ...   MSPB DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)

   Feb 19, 2015  ...  FedCir:  Herring v. MSPB  ...   FED CIR SMACKS DOWN MSPB FOR ABUSING AUTHORITY IN RETIREMENT TIMELINESS DECISION  ...   In March 2010, Ms. Herring was removed from her position as a cytotechnologist with the Department of the Navy. After her removal, she filed an application for disability retirement benefits with the Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”), which was denied.     Ms. Herring received the relevant OPM denial letter on July 14, 2012. Under the applicable regulations, the due date to file an appeal of the OPM denial was August 13, 2012.     However, because her attorney’s law office negligently failed to transmit to her attorney the documents submitted by Ms. Herring (while confirming to Ms. Herring that the neces- sary documents and payment had been received)     Ms. Herring did not file the appeal until August 23, 2012. Thereafter, an administrative judge dismissed the appeal as untimely filed, and the MSPB affirmed.     Ms. Herring timely appealed. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9) (2012).  ...   COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)


   Feb 17, 2015  ...  MSPB:  Rosario-Fabregas  v. Army  ...   EMPLOYEE RELATIONS SPECIALISTS: PLEASE READ AND SAVE THIS CONSTRUCTIVE SUSPENSION CASE.   ...   Although various fact patterns may give rise to an appealable constructive suspension, all constructive suspension claims are premised on the proposition that an absence that appears to be voluntary actually is not.      To demonstrate that the absence was, in part, not voluntary, and is an actionable constructive suspension, an appellant must show that: (1) the employee lacked a meaningful choice in the matter; and (2) it was the agency’s wrongful actions that deprived the employee of that choice. Romero v. U.S. Postal Service, 121 M.S.P.R. 606, 8 (2014). Assuming that the jurisdictional requirements of 5 U.S.C. chapter 75 are otherwise met, proof of these two things is sufficient to establish Board jurisdiction.      This analysis extends to situations in which the agency prevented the appellant’s return to work after an initially voluntary leave of absence.   ...  MSPB DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)


Dear, White House:
Please, take time from your vacation(s) and help the people in New England. On several occasions recently, I've heard numerous New England officials indicate that they don't know what to do with the massive amounts of snow that have been piling up. For weeks, they warned about the possibility of heavy snow collapsing homes. Now homes are starting to collapse. Don't wait for the looming disaster, on your watch. Stop being a tin ear. ... Show some leadership.  THE TIME TO ACT IS NOW !


   Feb 13, 2015  ...  MSPB:  Reid v. VA  ...   MY RESIGNATION WAS A CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE CAUSED BY RACE DISCRIMINATION AND REPRISAL FOR MY PRIOR EEO ACTIVITY.   ...   Effective May 21, 2010, the appellant resigned from his position as a GS-05 Secretary with the agency’s Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) in Indianapolis, Indiana.      On June 8, 2010, the appellant filed an equal employment opportunity (EEO) complaint with the agency, alleging, inter alia, that his resignation was a constructive discharge caused by race discrimination and reprisal for his prior EEO activity.      On July 12, 2011, the agency issued a final decision finding that the appellant’s resignation was voluntary and that the evidence failed to substantiate his allegations of discrimination and reprisal.      On October 24, 2014, the appellant filed an appeal with the Board and requested a hearing, alleging that his resignation was involuntary.   ...   MSPB DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)


   Feb 13, 2015  ...  C.A.A.F.:  U.S. v. Castillo  ...   I OBJECT TO THIS PANEL MEMBER WHO FOUND ME GUILTY OF RAPE AND ASSAULT  ...   Appellant was charged with raping and assaulting Specialist CC while stationed in Korea. Following individual voir dire, trial defense counsel challenged several panel members on the basis of actual and implied bias.     The military judge granted the defense’s challenge for cause against a panel member whose wife had been the victim of sexual assault, but denied the other challenges. This appeal centers on the defense’s challenge for cause against Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) DS.     During voir dire, LTC DS testified that he had been a victim of sexual assault as a child “twenty, almost thirty years ago.” He testified that the assault would not impact his ability to judge the case, because he did not view the case on trial “as the same issue at all.” He also testified that he was acquainted with the trial counsel.   ...   COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)


   Feb 13, 2015  ...  N.M.C.C.A.:  U.S. v. Pearce  ...   CONVICTED OF ATTEMPTING TO HAVE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH A WOMAN NOT HIS WIFE -and- SODOMY.  ...   Pursuant to his pleas, the military judge found the appellant guilty of one specification of failure to go, one specification of violating a lawful general order, one specification of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, two specifications of fraternization, one specification of solicitation to disobey a lawful general order, two specifications of breaking restriction, and one specification of solicitation to alter an official document.     The members then convicted the appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of attempting to have sexual intercourse with a woman not his wife, one specification of violating a lawful general order, two specifications of sodomy, one specification of adultery, and two specifications of solicitation to commit an offense.  ...   COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)


   Feb 12, 2015  ...  MSPB:  Patel v. Postal  ...   THE APPELLANT WAS REMOVED FROM HIS POSITION AS POSTMASTER   ...   The appellant was removed from his position as Postmaster of Flemington, New Jersey, EAS-21, effective July 19, 2013.     He had been serving an extended detail as Officer-in-Charge, EAS-22, at the Edison, New Jersey Post Office at the time of his removal, and the conduct for which he was removed occurred in Edison.     The agency charged him with Unacceptable Conduct, a single narrative charge that described the results of investigations of incidents of harassment involving three women under his supervision, X.C., R.G., and K.S.     The women claimed that the appellant touched them inappropriately at various times, misconduct that he categorically denied.     He appealed, and after a 2-day hearing, the administrative judge issued an initial decision sustaining the charge and relying on the testimony of the three complainants, whom she found to be credible.     She also rejected the appellant’s assertion that the notice of proposed removal was so vague as to violate his right to due process. ID at     On review, the appellant argues that the agency’s decision letter relied upon a superseded version of the notice of proposed removal.   ...   MSPB DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)


   Feb 11, 2015  ...  PANEL COULD SCRAP ADVICE ON DIETARY CHOLESTEROL         Longstanding advice about avoiding cholesterol for heart health may be on the way out.     In a draft report issued in December, an influential federal panel — the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee — scrapped longstanding guidelines about avoiding high-cholesterol food. In the draft, cholesterol — found in foods such as egg yolks — is no longer listed as a "nutrient of concern."     ... Steven Nissen, chairman of cardiovascular medicine at the famed Cleveland Clinic. "We got the dietary guidelines wrong. They've been wrong for decades."     He noted that only 20% of a person's blood cholesterol — the levels measured with standard cholesterol tests — comes from diet. The rest comes from genes, he said.     "We told people not to eat eggs. It was never based on good science," Nissen said.     Advice to avoid foods high in fat and cholesterol led many Americans to switch to foods high in sugar and carbohydrates, which often had more calories. "We got fatter and fatter," Nissen says. "We got more and more diabetes."     Recent studies even suggest that longtime advice on saturated fat and salt may be wrong, Nissen says.    (usatoday.com)


   Feb 11, 2015  ...  MSPB:  Frederick  v. Homeland  ...   HEY WAIT A MINUTE, YOU CAN'T SUSPEND ME TWICE FOR THE SAME INCIDENT !   ...   The appellant serves as a Supervisory Immigration Enforcement Agent with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.     Shortly after the agency imposed the appellant’s first indefinite suspension, the Board issued its decision in Gonzalez v. Department of Homeland Security, 114 M.S.P.R. 318, ¶¶ 13, 28 (2010), in which it held that an internal agency investigation into alleged employee wrongdoing does not constitute cause for imposing an indefinite suspension under chapter 75.     Thereafter, the agency issued the appellant a second notice of proposed indefinite suspension, this time citing its reasonable belief that the appellant had committed a crime for which a sentence of imprisonment could be imposed.     Similar to its prior notice and letter of decision imposing the first indefinite suspension, the agency again cited the issuance of the warrant for the appellant’s arrest on charges that he had violated Florida’s wiretap laws as the supporting specification for the second indefinite suspension.     In its second letter of decision, the agency explained that the appellant would be indefinitely suspended “based solely on the charge and specification outlined in the December 13th , 2010 proposal and no longer based upon the charge and specification sustained in the decision issued . . . on June 17th , 2010.” Id. On April 2, 2012, the agency returned the appellant to work after the criminal charges against him were dismissed.    The appellant argues that the agency subjected him to double punishment by imposing two indefinite suspensions based on the same incident.   ...  MSPB DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)


   Feb 10, 2015  ...  MSPB:  Agoranos v. DOJ (DEA)  ...   HOW THE HELL LONG DOES IT TAKE DEA TO DEAL WITH A POOR PERFORMING "WHITE MALE" EMPLOYEE ?   ...   Agoranos served as an Intelligence Research Specialist for the DEA’s Chicago Field Division starting on November 4, 2001. Agoranos began working under the supervision of Group Supervisor Lynette Georgevich. His initial job performance ratings were “acceptable,” but by 2003 his evaluation identified a need for performance improvement and coworkers had entered complaints regarding the quality of Agoranos’s work product and interpersonal skills. Georgevich consequently issued a written notice on January 27, 2004, informing Agoranos that he needed to improve his work product. In response, Agoranos filed a grievance against Georgevich.     Although Agoranos’s interactions with coworkers continued to be strained in 2005, Georgevich again gave Agoranos an acceptable rating for his job performance. In 2006, Agoranos’s performance declined once more. After another complaint by Agoranos against Georgevich, Georgevich felt she could no longer effectively manage Agoranos, and the DEA reassigned Agoranos to Field Intelligence Manager Patrick O’Dea in October 2006. Agoranos’s performance continued to wane, meriting a “less than acceptable level” by 2007. Special Agent in Charge Gary Olenkiewicz also “strongly recommended” that Agoranos seek a psychological exam in June 2007.     Because of the low performance rating, O’Dea issued a performance expectations memorandum outlining Agoranos’s job expectations, but Agoranos failed to meet those expectations due to, inter alia, poor writing, inadequate reports, and inaccurate information. O’Dea thus denied Agoranos a within-grade pay increase in 2008 because of his inability to perform at acceptable levels, and gave him an “unacceptable” performance rating on his 2008 evaluation. From July 2007 to June 2009, Agoranos also requested reassignment to vacant Intelligence Research Specialist positions thirty-one times—the DEA rejected all of his requests.     After his 2008 evaluation, the DEA placed Agoranos on a performance improvement plan (“PIP”) under the supervision of Group Supervisor Kevin Quinlan. Quinlan met with Agoranos weekly, but Agoranos still failed to consistently correct writing deficiencies, such as reporting inaccuracies, grammar, and formatting. Based on the PIP results, on May 6, 2009, O’Dea recommended that Agoranos be removed from his position as an Intelligence Research Specialist. The DEA issued a notice of proposed removal on January 7, 2010, requesting Agoranos’s removal due to his alleged failure to achieve acceptable performance in Critical Element 1 – Technical Competence/Results and Critical Element 2 – Communications.     Special Agent James Reed acted as the deciding official in Agoranos’s removal.   ...   MSPB DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)


   Feb 10, 2015  ...  MSPB:  McCray v. VA  ...   SHE WAS SUSPENDED 21 DAYS: FOR (1) FAILURE TO FOLLOW SUPERVISOR INSTRUCTIONS ; AND (2) FAILURE TO ANSWER AND RESPOND TO TELEPHONE CALLS AND/OR EMAILS FROM CUSTOMERS.   ...   The appellant filed an appeal of the agency’s action suspending her for 21 calendar days from her position as a GS-07 Purchasing Agent within the agency’s Prosthetics Treatment Center.     The agency based its action on the following two charges: (1) failure to follow supervisor instructions (two specifications); and (2) failure to answer and respond to telephone calls and/or emails from customers (two specifications).     On appeal, the administrative judge sustained the first charge, finding that the agency proved both specifications.     Regarding the second charge, the administrative judge did not sustain the first specification, finding that the agency did not prove that the appellant failed to answer telephone calls on December 9, 2013.     The administrative judge did, however, sustain the second specification, finding that the agency proved by preponderant evidence that the appellant failed to answer emails and telephone calls from a customer on January 31, 2014, and, thus, sustained the second charge.     The administrative judge concluded that the penalty of a 21-day suspension was not excessive and, thus, affirmed the agency’s action.     On review, the appellant accuses the administrative judge of bias.  ...   MSPB DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)


   Feb 10, 2015  ...  MSPB:  Fraser v. Commerce  ...   WHEN NO MEATY CASES EXIST, JUST GO WITH A "TIMELINESS CASE".   ...   The appellant was an Air Conditioning Equipment Mechanic Helper at the agency’s National Institute of Standards and Technology.   On June 17, 2013, the agency issued a letter proposing his removal due to medical inability to perform an essential function of his position. The letter was mailed to the appellant’s then-residence of record. On August 7, 2013, the appellant responded orally.     The agency issued a letter of decision on September 27, 2013, upholding the appellant’s removal effective that day.     The removal letter provided the appellant with notice of his right to file an appeal with the Board within 30 days of his receipt of the letter or the effective date of his removal, whichever was later. The letter of decision was mailed to the appellant’s address of record and was received by someone other than the appellant on September 30, 2013.     On February 6, 2014, the appellant filed this appeal of his removal.     The agency filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely, to which the appellant responded.     The administrative judge issued an initial decision dismissing the appeal as untimely without holding the requested hearing.     The appellant has submitted a timely petition for review.  ...   MSPB DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)


   Feb 05, 2015  ...  MSPB:  Stovall v. Defense  ...   LCA:    A TEACHABLE MOMENT FOR EMPLOYEE RELATIONS SPECIALISTS  /  AGENCY COUNSEL
  ...   THE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE FAILED TO GIVE THE APPELLANT PROPER BURGESS NOTICE. The Board lacks jurisdiction over an action taken pursuant to a LCA in which an appellant waives his right to appeal to the Board unless the appellant establishes that the appeal rights waiver should not be enforced. Because this issue raises a question of Board jurisdiction, the administrative judge must apprise the appellant of what he must submit to establish that the Board has jurisdiction over his appeal. Trotta, 73 M.S.P.R. at 11 (citing Burgess v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 758 F.2d 641, 643-44 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).     Here, the administrative judge’s acknowledgment order did not advise the appellant of the showing he was required to make to establish Board jurisdiction, i.e., that, in light of the waiver of appeal rights contained in the LCA, he was required to show that the waiver should not act as a bar to the Board’s adjudication of his appeal because: (1) he complied with the LCA; (2) the agency materially breached the LCA or acted in bad faith; (3) he did not voluntarily enter into the LCA; or (4) the LCA resulted from fraud or mutual mistake. The administrative judge should also have made the appellant aware that he was required “to make nonfrivolous allegation[s] . . . supported by some factual evidence, and that the production of such evidence would be necessary for him to show entitlement to a hearing on his appeal.     Thus, the administrative judge did not provide the appellant proper Burgess notice.  ...   MSPB DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)


   Feb 05, 2015  ...  MSPB:  Ortolano v. SSA  ...   SSA APPEALS THE MSPB DECISION THAT REVERSED HER REMOVAL FOR "EXCESSIVE ABSENCE"   ...   The agency removed the appellant from her position as a Service Representative, GS-0962-08, in the East Village District Office, New York, New York, based on a charge of excessive absence, alleging that she worked only 482.25 hours between March 12, 2009, and August 31, 2012.     This appeal followed. The appellant raised an affirmative defense of disability discrimination, claiming that she suffered from a compensable back injury that caused her ongoing pain and mobility issues. While the appeal was pending, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) approved her application for disability retirement.     After a hearing, the administrative judge determined that the agency proved its charge but that the appellant failed to establish her affirmative defense, concluding that she did not meet the definition of a qualified individual with a disability.     The administrative judge nevertheless reversed the agency’s removal action on the ground that the agency had violated her right to due process.     Specifically, the administrative judge determined that the deciding official, an Assistant District Manager, lacked the authority to reassign the appellant, that she was the decisionmaker in name only, and that the District Manager and the Area Manager made the actual decision to remove her.     The agency has filed a petition for review of the initial decision, which reversed its removal of the appellant.  ...   MSPB DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)


   Feb 03, 2015  ...  CAC:  Davis v. Unemployment  ...   DID THEY VIOLATE HIS FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHTS -or- DID HIS MOUTH WRITE A CHECK ... ?  ...   The plaintiff was an employed driver for the defendant Teddy’s Transportation System, Inc. (Teddy’s), from July 21, 2010, until his termination on January 7, 2012. After a formal complaint was filed by a coworker, the plaintiff was disciplined for making racially inappropriate comments. John Martinez, a manager at Teddy’s, met with the plaintiff on January 2, 2012, and warned him that his job was in jeopardy due to his inappropriate actions.      Two days later, on January 4, 2012, Martinez e-mailed the plaintiff, as well as other employees, and informed them that they were scheduled to attend a mandatory monthly harassment class on January 18, 2012.      Martinez informed the employees to notify him in the event that they had any ‘‘issues.’’      The plaintiff responded to the e-mail as follows: ‘‘Yes I do have issues. I don’t harass anyone and I don’t feel like I’m being [harassed]. In the course of working daily or nightly [sometimes] people have differences and express themselves differently, [does] that mean they need therapy?      I have no problems with the customers or being on time and taking them to their location [without] incident what more you want, if [that’s] not good enough I suggest you give me a pink slip I’ll walk.’’      The plaintiff’s employment was terminated on January 7, 2012, and he applied to receive unemployment benefits.      On January 30, 2012, the defendant Administrator of the Unemployment Compensation Act ruled that the plaintiff was eligible to receive compensation benefits effective January 8, 2012. Teddy’s thereafter filed a timely appeal.  ...   COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)


   Jan 29, 2015  ...  CCA:  People v. Espinoza  ...   WHY DID THEY FIND THIS JUDGE GUILTY OF ACTIONS RESULTING IN REVERSAL OF THE JURY'S CONVICTION ?  ...   The jury found defendant guilty on six counts: Two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon; possession of morphine; possession of marijuana; possession of ammunition by a felon; and possession of diazepam without a prescription.     The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of two years eight months.   ...   We hold the trial court erred by proceeding with trial in the absence of defendant and defense counsel because defendant did not knowingly waive several fundamental trial rights. We hold that this error was structural, requiring automatic reversal. We further conclude the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion for a one-day continuance after granting his Faretta motion––a separate ground for reversal.     Finally, we conclude defendant’s Pitchess claim is without merit. We will reverse the judgment of conviction.  ...   COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)


   Jan 29, 2015  ...  SCOL:  In Re: John D. Conry  ...  HOW BAD CAN A BAD ASSED ATTORNEY BE?   The Whitney National Bank Matter; The Watson Matter;The First Chase Bank Matter;The Ardoin Matter;The Second Chase Bank Matter;The Melendez Matter;The Moses Matter;The Wells Matter;The Joseph Matter;The Haydel Matter;The Butler Matter;The Froeba Matter;The Parker Matter;The Brown Matter.  ...  This disciplinary matter arises from formal charges filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) against respondent, John D. Conry, an attorney licensed to practice law in Louisiana but currently on interim suspension for threat of harm to the public.  ...  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)


   Jan 28, 2015  ...  MSPB:  Freeze v. Navy  ...   HAS THE US MILITARY BECOME THE MOST UNDERHANDED, ABUSIVE, DISHONEST, CORRUPT AND UN-AMERICAN ORGANIZATION IN UNITED STATES ???   ...   The appellant held the position of Intelligence Specialist with the agency’s Naval Special Warfare Development Group.     The position required him to obtain and maintain a Top Secret clearance with access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI).     By memorandum dated June 18, 2012, the agency suspended the appellant’s security clearance pending an investigation by the Department of the Navy Central Adjudication Facility to determine the final status of his clearance.     On June 19, 2012, the agency proposed to indefinitely suspend the appellant without pay based on the suspension of his Top Secret security clearance.     The appellant responded orally and in writing, and by letter dated August 29, 2012, which the agency amended on September 4, 2012, the deciding official notified the appellant that he was suspended without pay, effective September 5, 2012.     The deciding official also informed the appellant that the suspension would remain in effect until the completion and disposition of all issues regarding his security clearance and through the notice period of any subsequent adverse action in the event that a final determination was made to revoke his security clearance.  ...   MSPB DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)


   Jan 26, 2015  ...  7th Cir:  Association Of Administrative (Law Judges) v. Colvin  ...   AN INTERESTING PEAK BEHIND THE CURTAIN OF SSA's FRUSTRATION WITH ATTEMPTS TO IMPROVE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR DISABILITY JUDGES  ...   Association Of Administrative Law Judges, together with three administrative law judges employed by the Social Security Administration, are the plaintiffs in this suit.    ...   The plaintiffs contend that, by requiring its administrative law judges to decide at least 500 social security disability cases a year the Administration has interfered with the administrative law judges’ decisional independence.    The plaintiffs argue that because it takes less time for an administrative law judge to award social security disability benefits than to deny benefits, because an award is not judicially appealable and therefore the administrative law judge doesn’t have to be as careful in his analysis of the disability claim (doesn’t, in short, have to try to make his decision appeal proof), the effect of the quota (as we’ll call the “goal,” thus giving the plaintiffs the benefit of the doubt) is to induce administrative law judges to award more benefits. ...  DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)


   Jan 26, 2015  ...  SCI:  Iowa v. Love  ...   FLAWED JUSTICE?   SHE HIT HIM FIRST, BUT HE WAS CHARGED WITH ATTEMPTED MURDER. SHE WAS NOT CHARGED.  ...   They returned to Pruett’s house in Council Bluffs at about 10:30 p.m. and resumed drinking. They had sex. When Love tried to initiate sex again, Pruett refused. Love got upset and threw a weight at a living room wall, shattering a mirror. Frightened, Pruett ran into the bedroom and locked the door. Love pounded on the door, threatening to break the windows out of her car if she did not let him in.     Pruett relented. When she opened the door, Love took a swing at her and missed. Love’s errant blow punched a hole in the wall. Pruett ran to the bed, and when Love came after her, she grabbed a ceramic coffee mug and threw it at him, hitting Love in the forehead and cutting his scalp. Love then punched and kicked Pruett, bit her, hit her with the legs of a broken TV tray, burned her with a cigarette, and poured fingernail polish remover on her wounds.     Love was charged with Kidnapping In The First Degree, Attempted Murder, Willful Injury Causing Bodily Injury and Assault With Intent To Inflict Serious Injury.  ...  COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)


   Jan 22, 2015  ...  SUPREME COURT:  Homeland v. MacLean  ...   SUPREME COURT SAYS TSA SHOULD NOT HAVE FIRED THIS FEDERAL AIR MARSHAL FOR REVEALING AN UNSAFE MANAGEMENT DECISION  ...   Robert J. MacLean became a federal air marshal for the TSA in 2001.     ..............     MacLean contacted an MSNBC reporter who published a story about the TSA’s decision, titled “Air Marshals pulled from key flights.”     The story reported that air marshals would “no longer be covering cross-country or international flights” because the agency did not want them “to incur the expense of staying overnight in hotels.” Ibid. The story also reported that the cancellations were “particularly disturbing to some” because they “coincide[d] with a new high-level hijacking threat issued by the Department of Homeland Security.”     After MSNBC published the story, several Members of Congress criticized the cancellations. Within 24 hours, the TSA reversed its decision and put air marshals back on the flights.     At first, the TSA did not know that MacLean was the source of the disclosure. In September 2004, however, MacLean appeared on NBC Nightly News to criticize the TSA’s dress code for air marshals, which he believed made them too easy to identify. Although MacLean appeared in disguise, several co-workers recognized his voice, and the TSA began investigating the appearance.     During that investigation, MacLean admitted that he had disclosed the text message back in 2003. Consequently, in April 2006, the TSA fired MacLean for disclosing sensitive security information without authorization.   ...   COURT DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)


   Jan 20, 2015  ...  MSPB:  Sanders v. Homeland  ...   THIS IS A NICE AND MEATY PERFORMANCE / MEDICAL (INABILITY TO PERFORM) CASE   ...   The appellant was a Customs and Border Protection Officer (CBPO). Following an incident at work on August 3, 2011, the agency rescinded the appellant’s authority to carry a firearm and ordered him to undergo physical and psychiatric fitness-for-duty evaluations.     The appellant was examined by Dr. Brian Skop, who is certified in general and forensic psychiatry.     Dr. Skop conducted a general medical and mental health history with the appellant and asked him questions about the events he believed precipitated the fitness-for-duty evaluation.     Dr. Skop observed the appellant’s behavior through cognitive testing and conducted psychological testing using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) 2, a standard psychological test that looks for significant mental health issues and personality styles.     Dr. Skop concluded that the appellant was unable to work in a stressful law enforcement environment and that he was not fit for duty.     Dr. Paul Prunier, a consulting psychiatrist for the agency, reviewed Dr. Skop’s report and its supporting medical documentation and several memoranda and emails concerning the appellant’s behavior.     Dr. Prunier, who also has significant experience assessing agency employees, reached the same conclusion as Dr. Skop—that the appellant was not fit for duty.     The Homeland proposed the appellant’s removal based on a charge of inability to perform the essential duties of his position, and a decision was issued on June 4, 2012, sustaining the removal           Homeland has petitioned for review of an initial decision that reversed its action removing the appellant for inability to perform the essential duties of his position.  ...   MSPB DECISION:   (.pdf)   (.html)


   Jan 13, 2015  ...  COFC:  Jordan v. US  ...   FEMALE "VICTIM" WITH LITTLE SENIORITY, WANTS SAME PAY AS HER MORE SENIOR MALE CO-WORKERS  ...   This action was brought by plaintiff, Marlene Jordan, under the Equal Pay Act alleging gender-based discrimination in pay.     Ms. Jordan is employed by the Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”), as a Management and Program Analyst; in “the FV-343-H Series, H-band pay grade” at the FAA’s Service Center, Administrative Service Group, in Renton, Washington.     She alleges in her complaint that one named male co-worker earned $20,679 more per year than she did as of February 2012, and that four additionally named male employees occupying positions as H-band Management and Program Analysts also earned a higher salary than she did.     She coupled these allegations with the claim that she and the five named male co-workers “perform equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and the jobs are performed under similar working conditions.”     Ms. Jordan avers that “[t]he differential rate of pay was not part of or occasioned by a seniority system, merit system[,] a system based on quantity or quality of production, or upon a legitimate ‘factor other than sex.’”   ...   COURT DECISION:     (.pdf)   (.html)


   Jan 12, 2015  ...  CAC:  State v. Ayala  ...   SOMEONE IS LYING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED THAT NIGHT: THE POLICE -or- THE DRUNK(S)  ...   The defendant was arrested at the scene of the traffic stop for disrupting Buck’s motor vehicle investigation.     Thereafter, the defendant was placed in Phillips’ police cruiser and taken to the police station where he exited the cruiser in a secure garage. The surveillance video demonstrates that the defendant exited the police vehi- cle and walked into the police station where he was placed against a wall while the holding cell was readied for him.     None of the officers claimed that the defendant’s behavior from the time he entered the police cruiser until he entered the holding cell was disruptive or constituted interference.     The officers claimed that the defendant became disruptive and interfered when they attempted to remove his vest.     We conclude that the defendant’s alleged interference at the traffic stop on Hanover and Orange Streets and his alleged refusal to let the officers remove his vest at the police station comprised not one, but two distinct acts or transactions separated by time and location.     Because we conclude that the state failed to demon- strate good cause to permit the information to be amended at the conclusion of evidence, and because the second amended long form information alleged an additional crime, the court abused its discretion by per- mitting the amendment. We therefore reverse the judg- ment of conviction.     The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.  ...   COURT DECISION:     (pdf)   ...   (HTML)


   Jan 12, 2015  ...  CAC:  Taylor v. Commissioner  ...   DEVON TAYLOR BROKE THE DRUG DEALER'S HONOR CODE: DON'T KILL YOUR CUSTOMER  ...   Devon Taylor On August 27, 1993, ‘‘[Jay Murray, the victim,] and Ronald Wightwood, [Murray’s] companion, were attempting to purchase drugs [in Hartford]. They met Devon Taylor and indicated to him that they wanted cocaine.      Devon Taylor and the victim dis- cussed the purchase and the [petitioner] entered the victim’s pickup truck and drove it to the vicinity of a car wash on Albany Avenue.      Devon Taylor exited the truck and retrieved a plastic bag containing a white powdery substance, which he gave to the victim. After the victim sampled and rejected the substance, the [peti- tioner] drove the truck and its occupants to Milford Street.      Devon Taylor left the truck but returned sev- eral minutes later and shot the victim with a revolver through the driver’s side window of the truck. All of those events occurred in the presence of Wightwood. The police found $150 in the truck and also found the [petitioner’s] fingerprints on the exterior and interior of the truck.’’      The victim later died in a hospital. The petitioner was charged with murderand criminal possession of a firearm. In 1997, a jury found Devon Taylor guilty on both charges. The trial court, Barry, J., sentenced the petitioner to a total effective term of sixty years imprisonment.  ...   COURT DECISION:     (pdf)   ...   (HTML)


   Jan 09, 2015  ...  DCDC:  Kilby-Robb v. Education  ...   SHE ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION FOR AGE, RACE AND RETALIATION.   ...   Plaintiff Patricia Kilby-Robb, an African-American woman in her fifties, applied for a promotion to a vacant Management Analyst position at the United States Department of Education (“DOE”). After interviewing Kilby-Robb and Stacy Kreppel, another DOE employee, the Department selected Kreppel. Kilby-Robb has now brought suit, alleging that DOE discriminated against her on the basis of her age and race and retaliated against her for having filed a prior EEOC complaint.   ...   COURT DECISION:     (pdf)   ...   (HTML)


   Jan 08, 2015  ...  TECH:  BLU ANNOUNCES NEW 4.8", SUPER THIN, UNLOCKED PHONE FOR $199 ... PLUS 6 MORE SUB-$199   ...   gsmarena.com


   Jan 08, 2014  ...  DCAF:  Nucci v. Target  ...   SHE WAS SLICK PIMPING A SWEET PAYDAY SLIP AND FALL CASE AT TARGET, UNTIL TARGET'S LAWYER ASKED TO DISCOVER HER FACEBOOK PICTURES  ...   In her personal injury lawsuit, Nucci claimed that on February 4, 2010, she slipped and fell on a foreign substance on the floor of a Target store. In the complaint, she alleged the following:   (a)    Suffered bodily injury   (b)    Experienced pain from the injury   (c)    ncurred medical, hospital, and nursing expenses, suffered physical handicap   (d)    Suffered emotional pain and suffering   (e)    Lost earnings   (f)    Lost the ability to earn money   (g)    Lost or suffered a diminution of ability to enjoy her life   (h)    Suffered aggravation of preexisting injuries   (i)    Suffered permanent or continuing injuries   (j)    Will continue to suffer the losses and impairment in the future       Target took Nucci’s deposition on September 4, 2013. Before the deposition, Target’s lawyer viewed Nucci’s Facebook profile.  ...   COURT DECISION:     (pdf)   ...   (HTML)


   Jan 07, 2015  ...  TECH:  ASUS INTRODUCES A NEW 5.5" SMARTPHONE FOR $199 (Off Contract) TO MAKE "APPLE SUCKERS" FEEL LIKE FOOLS, AGAIN.   ...   The new ZenFone 2 announced today isn't just better-looking, but it's also packed with great specs: 64-bit quad-core Intel processor, 5.5-inch (1080p) IPS display, Gorilla Glass 3, 802.11ac Wi-Fi, fast-charge technology, up to 4GB of RAM, microSD slot, Android 5.0 (with ASUS' pretty ZenUI) and more. Better yet, this dual-SIM LTE phone starts from just $199 unsubsidized.    Engadget.com    ...    TheVerge.com


   Jan 07, 2015  ...  TECH:  SUCKER WATCH: Ever wonder how Verizon , AT&T can sell you the latest $650 iPhone for just $200? It's because the $200 iPhone really costs you $680 on Verizon, AT&T and Sprint.   ...   I was talking with friend recently. Trying to get her to jump from Verizon to a low cost contract-free carrier (Boost, Virgin Mobile, Straight Talk, Cricket, etc). During our conversation we discussed phone costs. I told her about great phone deals she could get for $199 or less. At this point, she interrupted me to proudly announce that she'd only paid $100 for her Sammy S5 on Verizon. I responded "you mean you paid $580" . She insisted that she'd only paid $100 for her Sammy S5 on contact with Verizon. I went on to explain that $20 of her monthly cellphone bill was to pay for the phone. So a FREE phone really costs $480 on contract ($20 x 24 months). She finally saw the light and is now waiting for her two year Verizon contract to end so she can break out of her on-contact prison cell.     Permerica.com  ...  (If you are off contract (month to month) with Verizon, AT&T and Sprint, you are paying $20 a month of $480 a year for nothing)


   Jan 07, 2015  ...  MSPB:  Reed v. VA  ...   TWO EXAMPLES OF ENTITIES THAT SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER; MSPB AND THE APPELLANT   ...   In this whistleblower appeal, the appellant alleges that the agency took various personnel actions, including a 3-day suspension, against her in retaliation for disclosures that she made concerning violations of its procedures in the handling of her administrative grievance. The facts, as the appellant alleges them, are as follows.       The appellant is a Human Resources Specialist (Employee Relations) for the agency. On February 13, 2012, the Assistant Chief of Human Resources issued the appellant an admonishment for disrespectful conduct toward her supervisor. The appellant filed an informal grievance, challenging the factual basis of the admonishment. On April 9, 2012, the Assistant Chief denied the grievance.     -----   The appellant filed this grievance under administrative—not negotiated—grievance procedures. The appellant is not part of a collective bargaining unit because the nature of her position excludes coverage.   -----     On April 18, 2012, the appellant filed a formal grievance, again challenging the factual basis for the admonishment. On May 14, 2012, the Chief of Human Resources denied the appellant’s formal grievance and the appellant requested that a grievance examiner be appointed.     The agency appointed a grievance examiner, and on June 20, 2012, the grievance examiner issued a memorandum to the Chief recommending that the grievance be denied. Citing the examiner’s findings and recommendations, the Chief again informed the appellant that her grievance was denied.     On June 22, 2012, the appellant emailed the Medical Center Director and informed him of what she believed to be a “futile grievance process.”   ...   MSPB DECISION:     (PDF)   ...   (HTML)


   MSPB:  Goeke and Bottini v. Justice  ...   THIS CASE IS ABOUT THE US ATTORNEYS WHO SUCCESSFULLY PROSECUTED ALASKA SENATOR, TED STEVENS.   ...   The appellants are Assistant United States Attorneys who participated in the 2008 federal criminal prosecution of a United States Senator for failing to report gifts and liabilities on his financial disclosure statements.     After a jury convicted the Senator, the government moved to vacate the conviction because its prosecution team had failed to disclose information to which the defense was constitutionally entitled, specifically, information that was exculpatory or could have been used to impeach the prosecution’s witnesses.     The agency’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigated the appellants’ conduct and issued a Report of Investigation (ROI) concluding that they had recklessly, although not intentionally, committed professional misconduct in handling some of this information.        This case is before the Board on the agency’s petition for review of the administrative judge’s initial decision, which reversed the appellants’ suspensions on the grounds of harmful procedural error.  ...   MSPB DECISION:     (PDF)   ...   (HTML)


   MSPB:  Prouty & Weller  v. GSA  ...   QUITE OFTEN, THE OIG INVESTIGATORS ARE WAY MORE INCOMPETENT THAN THE ALLEGED CORRUPT MANAGERS   ...   In light of the record and the agency’s arguments before us, we are constrained to agree with the administrative judges’ decisions to reverse these removal actions.    ORDER   We ORDER the agency to cancel the appellants’ removals and to restore them effective June 25, 2012. The agency must complete this action no later than 20 days after the date of this decision.    We also ORDER the agency to pay the appellants the correct amount of back pay, interest on back pay, and other benefits under the Office of Personnel Management’s regulations, no later than 60 calendar days after the date of this decision. We ORDER the appellants to cooperate in good faith in the agency’s efforts to calculate the amount of back pay, interest, and benefits due, and to provide all necessary information the agency requests to help it carry out the Board’s Order. If there is a dispute about the amount of back pay, interest due, and/or other benefits, we ORDER the agency to pay the appellants the undisputed amount no later than 60 calendar days after the date of this decision.   ...   MSPB DECISION:     (PDF)   ...   (HTML)


   MSPB:  Southerland v. Defense  ...   EVERYTHING SAID, IT IS "LOW DOWN" HOW MSPB USES LEGAL MUMBO JUMBO TO DENY THIS GUY (VICTIM) HIS $57,000 ATTORNEY FEES.   ...   The appellant has filed a petition for review, and the agency has filed a response.     The appellant reiterates that the EEOC has found that an appellant could be considered a prevailing party for fee purposes when there is a finding of discrimination in a mixed-motive case, and he asserts that the Board must defer to the EEOC on this issue, which he claims is a matter of discrimination, not civil service, law.   ...   MSPB DECISION:     (PDF)   ...   (HTML)


   MSPB:  Powell v. Postal  ...   THIS US POSTAL SERVICE SUPERVISOR IS APPEALING HIS REMOVAL FOR DELAY OF MAIL.   ...   The appellant held the position of Supervisor, Customer Service, at the Center City US Postal Station in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.     At that facility, a security service drops off packages from American Precious Metal Exchange (APMEX) Monday through Friday of each week for delivery via registered mail.     On March 4, 2013, 44 such packages were dropped off, with a total value of nearly $560,000.     That evening, at 6:50 p.m., the appellant performed a closeout verification, indicating that his unit was free of all outgoing mail and that all mail was dispatched on time.     He then departed for the day sometime between 7:15 p.m. and 7:30 p.m., despite knowing that the 44 APMEX packages had not yet been prepared for dispatch.     According to the appellant, he assumed that one of the clerks would get the packages onto the last truck.     However, the packages were not dispatched until the following morning, after being found during a routine sweep of the facility.     The agency removed the appellant based on two charges: (1) failure to follow instructions, and (2) delay of mail.     The appellant appealed his removal to the Board. After conducting a hearing, the administrative judge affirmed the removal.     The appellant has filed a petition for review.     The agency has filed a response and the appellant has replied.   ...   MSPB DECISION:     (PDF)   ...   (HTML)


   Fed Cir:  Archuleta (OPM) v. Hopper  ...   DUMB AND DUMBER: THIS HAS TO BE ONE OF THE DUMBEST DECISIONS EVER MADE BY THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT - (These Clowns Actually Rubber Stamped The Union-Biased MSPB's Decision To Treat A Suitability Removal as A Simple Adverse Action Appeal)  ...   In April 2008, Tony Hopper (“Hopper”) was appointed to the position of Contract Representative with the Social Security Administration (“the SSA”) in Florence, Ken- tucky. The SSA subsequently requested that OPM conduct a background investigation.      Roughly 15 months after his appointment, OPM in- formed Hopper that it found “a serious question” regard- ing his suitability for federal employment due to false statements he made in connection with his application and appointment. When asked on his application wheth- er, during the past five years, he had been fired from any job or had quit after being told he would be fired, Hopper responded “no.” To the contrary, OPM alleged that Hop- per had been fired from a forklift driver position in October 2007, and from a truck driver position with a different company in December 2006.      OPM further charged that, in re- sponse to a question requesting a list of all employment activities for the past five years, Hopper failed to report his employment in the truck driver position from which he was terminated.   ...   COURT DECISION:     (pdf)   ...   (HTML)


   MSPB:  Grimes v. Justice  ...   SHE ALLEGES THAT THE DECISIONS TO REVOKE HER ELIGIBILITY TO HOLD A CRITICAL-SENSITIVE POSITION AND TO PROPOSE HER REMOVAL WERE IN REPRISAL FOR HER PRIOR EEO ACTIVITY.   ...   At the time of her removal, the appellant served as a Paralegal Specialist with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Alabama.      Pursuant to the agency’s employment security regulations, the appellant’s position was designated as a critical-sensitive (Level 3) position, which included positions within the agency that could require, among other things: (1) access to, or afford a ready opportunity to gain access to, secret and/or confidential national security information (NSI) and material; or (2) access to grand jury information.      Based upon a report prepared by the agency’s Office of Inspector General, the agency’s Chief of Personnel Security determined that the appellant should not be afforded the opportunity to gain access to secret and/or confidential NSI material or grand jury information, and she further found that the appellant’s “continued assignment as a Paralegal Specialist poses an unnecessary and unacceptable operational security risk to the [Department of      Citing this finding, the agency proposed the appellant’s removal on two charges: failure to maintain a qualification of her position and misrepresentation under oath.      After considering the appellant’s response, including her response to the Personnel Security Chief’s reconsideration decision, the deciding official sustained the charges and imposed the appellant’s removal.   ...   MSPB DECISION:     (PDF)   ...   (HTML)


   FLRA:  VA (Boston) v.  AFGE  ...   DID VA BOSTON REALLY ACT IMPROPERLY WHEN IT SUSPENDED THE GRIEVANT FOR FOURTEEN DAYS, REASSIGNED HIM, REMOVED HIM FROM THREE COMMITTEE POSITIONS, AND REVOKED HIS SEX-THERAPIST PRIVILEGE?   ...   The grievant was a licensed clinical psychologist assigned to the Spinal Cord Injury Program (SCI program), holding a special privilege in sex therapy. In this position he oversaw psychologists-in-training, including both doctoral candidates and post-doctoral fellows. At a certain point, one such post-doctoral fellow told the director of the program that she had heard of inappropriate behavior by the grievant. An Administrative Board of Investigation (ABI) investigated these allegations. The ABI held a hearing and subsequently issued a report indicating that all of the allegations against the grievant were true.      After receiving the ABI’s report, the Chief of Psychology Service (chief) proposed a fourteen-day suspension. On the same day that the chief proposed this suspension, she also informed the grievant that she was reassigning him from the SCI program and that his sex-therapy privilege was “under review.”[2] The privilege was later revoked. Additionally, the grievant was removed or asked to resign from three committees: the Ethics Advisory Committee, the Professional Standards Board, and a committee on palliative care.      Arbitrator Margery E. Williams determined that the Agency acted improperly when it suspended the grievant for fourteen days, reassigned him, removed him from three committee positions, and revoked his sex-therapist privilege. As a remedy, the Arbitrator ordered the Agency to rescind the grievant’s suspension and make him whole for all lost compensation and benefits; restore him to his original position; reinstate him to the committee positions from which he was removed; and restore his sex-therapy privileges.      In its exceptions, the Agency asks the Authority to review the award on three grounds.  ...   Here, VA (Boston) Appeals To FLRA:  FLRA DECISION:     (PDF)   ...   (HTML)


   DCDC:  Austin v. AIR  ...   FIRED AFTER DIAGNOSED WITH LUPUS, RAYNAUD’S SYNDROME, DEPRESSION, AND LYME DISEASE. .  ...   Plaintiff Monica Austin brings this suit against defendant American Institute for Research (“AIR”) for employment discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, ... and the Americans with Disabilities Act, ... (“ADA”), as well as for violations ofthe Family and Medical Leave Act, ... (“FMLA”).     Ms. Austin, an African-American woman, was employed by American Institute for Research (“AIR”) from 2001 to 2011, as an administrative assistant and then as an HR coordinator.    In 2007, Ms. Austin was diagnosed with Lupus, Raynaud’s Syndrome, depression, and Lyme disease. She applied for and took four months of leave under the FMLA, and returned to work in October 2008.    The allegations in the Complaint arise out of plaintiffs treatment upon return from leave.      After her termination, Ms. Austin filed an official charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).  ...   COURT DECISION:     (pdf)   ...   (HTML)


   MSPB:  Reed v. VA  ...   THE VA EMPLOYEE RELATIONS SPECIALIST WHO GOT A CHANCE TO USE THE SYSTEM & PROCEDURES.   ...   In this whistleblower appeal, the appellant alleges that the agency took various personnel actions, including a 3-day suspension, against her in retaliation for disclosures that she made concerning violations of its procedures in the handling of her administrative grievance. The facts, as the appellant alleges them, are as follows.     The appellant is a Human Resources Specialist (Employee Relations) for the agency.     On February 13, 2012, the Assistant Chief of Human Resources issued the appellant an admonishment for disrespectful conduct toward her supervisor.     The appellant filed an informal grievance, challenging the factual basis of the admonishment.     On October 4, 2012, the Chief proposed to suspend the appellant for 3 days based on complaints from three different agency officials who had sought the appellant’s advice on various personnel matters. After the appellant responded,on October 26, 2012, the Chief issued a decision effecting the 3-day suspension.  ...   MSPB DECISION:     (PDF)   ...   (HTML)


   DCDC:  Darby v. Shinseki  ...   ALLEGED VA DISCRIMINATED AGAINST HER WHEN IT DENIED HER A CAREER LADDER PROMOTION TO THE GS-9 LEVEL AND RECLASSIFIED HER POSITION   ...   Barbara Darby was employed as a Support Program Assistant by the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) when a dispute arose over the proper GS rating for her position, and Ms. Darby filed an employment discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.      Ms. Darby alleged that the VA discriminated against her when it denied her a career ladder promotion to the GS-9 level and reclassified Ms. Darby’s position from Program Support Assistant to Secretary.      The EEOC issued administrative findings that no discrimination had taken place. Ms. Darby appealed and the EEOC upheld the initial finding of no discrimination.      The EEOC denied Ms. Darby’s request for reconsideration and informed Ms. Darby of her right to file a civil action “in an appropriate United States District Court” within ninety days.      Ms. Darby filed suit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on December 9, 2013.      Her Complaint alleged “Requested Reconsideration Denied. Right to file civil action,” and included the Equal Employment Opportunity complaint number above her address.      Ms. Darby filed an Amended Complaint on February 25, 2014, listing attached “e-mail communication[s.]”     The Superior Court held a number of conferences and hearings, during which the VA was not present or represented, and entered default against the VA on April 4, 2014.      An attorney from the VA contacted the Superior Court judge to explain that the VA was represented by the Department of Justice in the matter.      The VA then filed a notice of removal to this Court on June 18, 2014.   ...   MSPB DECISION:     (PDF)   ...   (HTML)


   8th Cir:  Moody v. Vozel  ...   TWO OF HIS CREW MEMBERS, BELINDA AND REBECCA , ACCUSED HIM OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT  ...   Moody, a Caucasian male, worked for AHTD for over twenty-six years. He initially worked as a truck driver and mower operator and later was promoted to crew leader, a supervisory position.      In October 2010, two of Moody’s female crew members, Belinda Rogers and Rebecca Bohannon, accused Moody of sexual harassment. Moody denied, and continues to deny, these allegations. Moody had previously disciplined both Bohannon and Rogers for violations of AHTD policies and believes they made the false allegations in retaliation.      Upon receipt of the harassment charges, AHTD’s Equal Employment Opportunity on the results of that investigation, AHTD terminated Moody’s employment for violating its sexual harassment policy.  ...   COURT DECISION:     (pdf)   ...   (HTML)


   DCDC:  Kuklinski v. Treasury  ...   DID THE US MINT MANAGERS PROTECT A SEXUAL HARASSER -AND- RETALIATE AGAINST SUPERVISOR WHO RECOMMENDED HARASSER'S REMOVAL ?  ...   Anthony Kuklinski has worked for the Department of the Treasury for approximately 20 years. He worked for the U.S. Mint Police, which is a part of the Treasury, in Fort Knox, Kentucky from 1990 to 2000, and resumed working there in 2004. Mr. Kuklinski is currently an Inspector with the U.S. Mint Police.      During the period of time relevant to the allegations set forth in the Complaint, Mr. Kuklinski directly supervised three shift lieutenants, six shift sergeants, and approximately 48 officers.      Mr. Kuklinski alleges that, in 2008, he was approached by a subordinate officer who complained that she was being sexually harassed by a fellow officer. As the supervisor responsible for determining whether discipline was warranted, Mr. Kuklinski investigated her complaint.      During that investigation, Mr. Kuklinski asserts that he learned that the officer accused of harassment had used security cameras to track the female officer’s movements, placed recording devices around the facility to listen to her conversations, maintained a journal in his locker detailing murder fantasies about her, watched her from under her porch at her residence, and otherwise spied on her. Mr. Kuklinski recommended removal of the male officer and advised the female officer of her right to seek the assistance of an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) counselor.      Mr. Kuklinski alleges that his superiors ignored his recommendation that the accused officer be removed. Instead, they engaged in a plan to protect the officer accused of harassment and to intimidate the female officer.      On November 7, 2011, Mr. Kuklinski received notice that his “Access to Classified Information” status and his security clearance were officially suspended. Mr. Kuklinski alleges that this suspension was due to the “entirely pretextual investigation” and that even though the U.S. Mint Police “knew that there were no valid grounds for suspension of [his] security clearance,” it delayed reinstatement in order to degrade and humiliate him.   ...  COURT DECISION:     (pdf)   ...   (HTML)


   MSPB:  Linder v. Justice  ...   LOOKS LIKE THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATOR WITH THE U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE IS GETTING A SECOND CHANCE AT JUSTICE.   ...   The appellant, a Criminal Investigator with the U.S. Marshals Service, filed an IRA appeal alleging that the agency reassigned him in retaliation for his disclosing of misconduct by agency employees to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.     The appellant alleged that his reassignment constituted reprisal for his protected disclosure in violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8).     The appellant was before the district court based on his indictment for committing civil rights violations by using excessive force against two individuals.     During the court proceedings, the appellant disclosed to the court, in his motion to dismiss the indictment, that some agency employees had violated his rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments by intentionally interfering with his right to conduct a defense investigation and interview prospective witnesses, who were also employees of the U.S. Marshals Service.     Specifically, the appellant disclosed that agency employees threatened individuals, who were witnesses to the appellant’s purported civil rights violations, that they would face possible employment actions or be prosecuted if they cooperated with the appellant’s attorney. Id. The court ruled for the appellant and dismissed the indictment, citing severe violations of the appellant’s constitutional rights by agency employees.     Without holding the hearing that the appellant had requested, the administrative judge dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.        In his petition for review, the appellant contends that the administrative judge erred   ...   MSPB DECISION:     (PDF)   ...   (HTML)


   FLRA:  Agriculture(Forest Service) v. NFFE  ...   FOREST SERVICE PAID OVERTIME AS ADMINISTRATIVELY UNCONTROLLABLE OVERTIME (AUO) –– INSTEAD OF AS TIME-AND-A-HALF   ...   The Agency paid overtime hours worked by certain employees (the grievants) as administratively uncontrollable overtime (AUO) – a type of premium payment that is a percentage of an employee’s annual pay based on the number of overtime hours worked per year – instead of as time-and-a-half overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the FLSA). Arbitrator Christopher M. Shulman found that, by paying the overtime as AUO, the Agency violated Articles 18 and 19 of the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement, the FLSA, and 5 C.F.R. § 610.121(b)(3).        There are several substantive questions before us. The first five questions are whether: the award is contrary to an Agency-wide regulation; the award is incomplete, ambiguous, or contradictory as to make implementation of the award impossible; the award is contrary to 5 U.S.C. § 5542(a)(1) and 5 C.F.R. § 550.151; the cease-and-desist remedy is “flawed” and violates law, regulation, and the parties’ agreement;[1] and the award fails to draw its essence from the parties’ agreement. Because the Agency failed to support each of these exceptions, we deny all five under § 2425.6(e)(1) of the Authority’s Regulations.[2]    v The remaining question is whether the Arbitrator’s award is contrary to several other laws and regulations regarding AUO and FLSA-overtime payments.   ...   Here, Agriculture(Forest Service) Appeals To FLRA:  FLRA DECISION:     (PDF)   ...   (HTML)


   MSPB:  EEOC v. Royal Caribbean  ...   DEAR CONSERVATIVES, PLEASE ASSIGN A COMMITTEE TO DEAL WITH THESE EEOC COMMUNIST BULLIES   ...   In June 2010, Jose Morabito, an Argentinean national who was employed by Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. (“RCCL”) as an assistant waiter on one of its cruise ships, filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. Mr. Morabito alleged that RCCL violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12112, when RCCL refused to renew his employment contract after he was diagnosed with a medical condition. Mr. Morabito had been diagnosed with HIV and Kaposi Sarcoma, but he had been declared fit for duty by his physician.       After receiving RCCL’s position statement, the EEOC requested a list of all employees discharged by RCCL since 2010 pursuant to the BMA medical standards. RCCL objected, asserting that the ADA did not cover foreign nationals working on foreign-flagged ships and that the information sought was not relevant to Mr. Morabito’s charge.       The magistrate judge recommended that the petition to enforce the subpoena be denied on the grounds that the information sought was not relevant to Mr. Morabito’s charge and that compliance with the disputed portions of the subpoena would be unduly burdensome. The EEOC filed objections with the district court. The district court rejected the EEOC’s contentions and affirmed and adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.   The EEOC appeals.   ...   MSPB DECISION:     (PDF)   ...   (HTML)


   MSPB:  Yee v. Navy  ...   WAS REMOVAL FOR DISCRIMINATION -OR- FOR 24 INSTANCES OF AWOL, TOTALING 192 HOURS, AND 51 INSTANCES OF FAILURE TO FOLLOW LEAVE RESTRICTION LETTER PROCEDURES ???   ...   The agency removed the appellant from the position of Contract Specialist, GS-11, for the charges of (1) absence without leave (AWOL), and (2) failure to follow leave restriction letter procedures, effective September 5, 2013.      At issue were 24 instances of AWOL, totaling 192 hours, and 51 instances of failure to follow leave restriction letter procedures, all falling between July 31, 2012, and July 2, 2013.      Prior to removing the appellant, the agency was aware that he suffered from medical conditions. In October 2012, the agency received medical documentation that referenced the appellant’s generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and alcohol dependence.      Both the proposal and removal notices also referenced the appellant’s medical conditions as a mitigating factor.      Specifically, they reflect that the appellant entered a rehabilitation treatment facility on October 13, 2012, for generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and alcohol dependence; and that he reentered a rehabilitation facility for an undisclosed “severe medical condition” in April 2013.      The appellant filed an appeal, challenging his removal as factually “incomplete, inaccurate and false”; not taken to promote the efficiency of the service; and motivated by disability discrimination.   ...   MSPB DECISION:     (PDF)   ...   (HTML)


   MSPB:  Johnson v. VA  ...   DEAR MSPB, NOW PLEASE LET ME HAVE ANOTHER BITE OF THE APPLE   ...   After the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) closed out the appellant’s complaint alleging that the agency had removed him in 2009 in reprisal for whistleblowing, the appellant filed a September 18, 2013 IRA appeal alleging that the agency removed him based on disclosures protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA).      The administrative judge issued a show cause order informing the appellant that he had previously challenged his removal and alleged reprisal for whistleblowing in a Board appeal in Johnson v. Department of Veterans Affairs, MSPB Docket No. DE-0752-12-0459-I-1, which had been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on June 4, 2013, because the appellant had made a prior election to grieve his removal, and which became final on July 9, 2013, when neither party filed a petition for review.      The administrative judge noted that it appeared that the Board similarly lacks jurisdiction over this appeal due to the appellant’s election to grieve his removal and afforded him an opportunity to submit evidence and argument addressing this issue.  ...   MSPB DECISION:     (PDF)   ...   (HTML)


   TSC:  Ferguson v. TSU  ...   TENNESSEE APPEALS COURT REVERSED JURY DISCRIMINATION VERDICT.    TENNESSEE SUPREME COURT RESTORED JURY DECISION.  ...   Jim Ferguson v. Middle Tennessee State University, M2012-00890-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. 2014) Tennessee Supreme Court      A jury awarded compensatory damages to Jim Ferguson after finding that his employer, Middle Tennessee State University (“MTSU”), through the actions of its supervisor, retaliated against Mr. Ferguson for filing a discrimination suit against MTSU. ... The jury awarded the employee compensatory damages.      The Court of Appeals reversed the award, holding that the employee had failed to prove that his supervisor had knowledge of his protected activity when she took adverse action against him.      We hold that the jury’s verdict is supported by material evidence from which the jury could infer that the supervisor knew that the employee had filed a lawsuit for discrimination when she engaged in retaliatory conduct.  ...   COURT DECISION:     (pdf)   ...   (HTML)


   Fed CIR:  Wrocklage v. Dhs  ...   FED CIR JUST REVERSED 2 OF THE 3 CHARGES SUPPORTING THE BORDER PATROL OFFICER'S REMOVAL   ...   Mr. Wrocklage served as a CBP Officer for twelve years. On September 28, 2009, Mr. Wrocklage took home a copy of the Treasury Enforcement Communication System (TECS) report reflecting the $300 fine issued to the Millers. The TECS report included Mr. Miller’s social security number, date of birth, address, and license plate number. In an email to the Joint Intake Center associated with the CBP, Mr. Wrocklage reported the details of the day’s events and stated that he believed the Millers were innocent and had been wrongly charged. Mr. Wrocklage attached the TECS report to his email. He carbon copied     Amy Berglund, an employee in Senator Carl Levin’s office, on his email complaint. Within hours of sending the email, Mr. Wrocklage realized that the TECS report had been attached to the email which he copied to Ms. Berglund. He immediately contacted her, and in response to his request, Ms. Berglund deleted Mr. Wrocklage’s emails before opening and reading the attached TECS report. Mr. Wrocklage also immediately self-reported to the Agency his transmission of the TECS report to Ms. Berglund that same night, explaining that he had inad- vertently sent the TECS report to Ms. Berglund in his haste to expeditiously forward the TECS report to the Joint Intake Center.    ...   ...    The Agency removed Mr. Wrocklage from his CBP position for     (Charge 1) improper possession of TECS information ,     (Charge 2) unauthorized disclosures of TECS information     and     (Charge 3) lack of candor during the investigation.        The Board affirmed. This appeal followed.  ...   COURT DECISION:     (pdf)   ...   (HTML)


   MSPB:  Colbert v. VA  ...   WAS HE A RETALIATED AGAINST VA WHISTLE-BLOWER -OR- JUST BLOWING IN THE WIND   ...   The appellant, a nurse, averred that he filed a “form 11” complaint with OSC on December 30, 2011, in which he disclosed that “medications were being distributed to veterans in a manner that was [not] in accordance with proper procedure[s] and several patients (i.e., veterans) were given access to areas that [were] not appropriate.”     He further averred that, in reprisal for this complaint, he “started experiencing retaliation” in the form of car vandalism, patient complaints, a hostile work environment, a July 16, 2012 “minimally satisfactory” evaluation, and a “double bind” proficiency review and summary review notice.     The appellant stated that he filed an OSC complaint on July 24, 2012, documenting such instances of alleged retaliation.     On July 26, 2012, the appellant informed the agency that he would resign, effective August 12, 2012.     After the appellant resigned, he filed another OSC reprisal complaint.  ...   MSPB DECISION:     (PDF)   ...   (HTML)


   WVSC:  W Virginia v. Roberts  ...   MURDER WAS THE CASE:   DID SHE DO IT -OR- NOT  ...   On or about August 22, 2011, at approximately 11:30 p.m., petitioner’s husband, David Roberts, entered a convenience store, known as the Pop Shop, in Bramwell, Mercer County. Petitioner was parked about fifty yards away in a Lincoln Navigator. In the store at the time were Candace Flanigan, the store clerk, and Andrew Bailey, her boyfriend.     Petitioner’s husband entered the store armed with a shotgun wearing a hoodie pulled around his face. He demanded that Ms. Flanigan give him the money from the cash register. Petitioner’s husband took the money from the register, and as he went to leave the store, Mr. Bailey drew a concealed handgun and shot him multiple times. Petitioner’s husband fell to the ground in front of the store and dropped the money.     Shortly after the shots were fired, petitioner drove the Lincoln Navigator to the front of the Pop Shop, and asked if she could take her husband to the hospital.     Bailey did not allow petitioner to remove her husband. Petitioner then began picking up some of the money that her husband had dropped and left the scene.     Petitioner’s husband died as a result of his injuries. When Ms. Flanigan made the final count of the money after the robbery, approximately $700 was missing.  ...   COURT DECISION:     (pdf)   ...   (HTML)


   DCD:  Bullock v. Donohoe  ...   THEY FIRED ME FOR MY DISABILITY --- NOT BECAUSE I WAS LOCKED UP IN JAIL  ...   Plaintiff Erik Bullock is a former letter carrier in the District of Columbia who was fired in May 2010 on the grounds that he lied about his absence from work while he was incarcerated.    Bullock alleges, however, that he was “targeted for removal by [his] supervisors” after he broke his left ankle in June 2000 because he “could no longer deliver [his] route in the timely manner that was expected of [him].”     Proceeding pro se, Bullock sues the Postmaster General of the United States Postal Service for discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., which prohibits federal employers from discriminating on the basis of disability and retaliating against individuals for exercising rights under the Act.  ...   COURT DECISION:     (pdf)   ...   (HTML)


   OCA:  McCollins v. Cuyahoga  ...   WOW THATS DIFFERENT:   AN IMPOSED 5-DAY SUSPENSION & MANDATORY “LAST CHANCE AGREEMENT” IN LIEU OF REMOVAL.   ...   The director of human resources subsequently served McCollins with the discipline order titled “Suspension with a Last Chance Agreement,” which included a copy of the Last Chance Agreement. The notice states, in relevant part:
    This letter is notify you that you will serve a 5-day suspension from the position of Investigator II, with the Cuyahoga County Medical Examiner’s Office, effective November 6, 7 and 8, 9, and 13, 2011. The offense would have resulted in a removal, but the discipline has been reduced to include a mandatory Last Chance Agreement. * * * Your disciplinary history and behavior in the above noted instances is considered so unacceptable that any future infraction or violation of the mandatory Last Chance Agreement will result in your removal from County employment.
    The order also provided notice of McCollins’s right to appeal this disciplinary action, but Collins did not appeal.   ...   COURT DECISION:     (pdf)   ...   (HTML)

   MSPB:  McNab v. Army  ...   REMOVED FOR (1) ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE (AWOL), (2) FAILURE TO FOLLOW LEAVE RESTRICTION LETTER PROCEDURES  ...   The agency removed the appellant from the position of Contract Specialist, GS-11, for the charges of (1) absence without leave (AWOL), and (2) failure to follow leave restriction letter procedures, effective September 5, 2013.      At issue were 24 instances of AWOL, totaling 192 hours, and 51 instances of failure to follow leave restriction letter procedures, all falling between July 31, 2012, and July 2, 2013.      Prior to removing the appellant, the agency was aware that he suffered from medical conditions. In October 2012, the agency received medical documentation that referenced the appellant’s generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and alcohol dependence.      Initial The administrative judge sustained both charges, found the appellant’s affirmative defenses unproven, and affirmed the appellant’s removal. The appellant has filed a petition for review, challenging the administrative judge’s findings that he was not disabled under the ADAAA and that the agency did not subject him to a disparate penalty, commit harmful procedural error, or violate his due process rights.      The agency has responded to the petition for review.  ...   MSPB DECISION:     (PDF)   ...   (HTML)

   DCDC:  Donovan v. Powell  ...   SERIOUSLY, THIS IS A CASE FROM THE "NATIONAL GALLERY OF ART" (NGA)  ...   Plaintiff was hired as a Sales Store Checker in the NGA’s Gallery Shops in April 1998.     In March 2004, Plaintiff first informed Defendant that he had epilepsy, a disability under 29 U.S.C. § 791(g). Plaintiff requested a reasonable accommodation to allow his epilepsy medication to be delivered to him at work because the mailbox at his new apartment was not secure. When Plaintiff’s supervisor, Karen Boyd, denied the request, Plaintiff was able to secure the accommodation after contacting the NGA’s EEO Office.     In early 2006, Plaintiff was disciplined for “rude” conduct to customers. Several months later, NGA suspended Plaintiff for five days, alleging negligence and insubordination.     On December 4, 2012, Ms. Boyd allegedly received a complaint that Plaintiff had made an inappropriate comment of a sexual nature to a 15-year-old female customer. Plaintiff allegedly told the girl to unfold the cash she offered as payment because “that’s how you pass money to a stripper.”     On January 11, 2013, Ms. Boyd issued the Plaintiff a letter of proposed removal based on the December 4, 2012 complaint.     Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Boyd fabricated the basis for Plaintiff’s termination in retaliation for his “EEO activity that began in March, 2004, and that had as its most recent occurrence his December 19, 2012, complaint to Ms. Boyd . . . .”     On April 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant in this Court.  ...   COURT DECISION:     (PDF)   ...   (HTML)


   2nd CIR:  EEOC v. Port Authority  ...   EEOC IS TOO SEXIST FOR AMERICA  -  LOSES FRIVOLOUS SEX-PAY DISCRIMINATION CASE, AGAIN  ...   The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) appeals from a judgment on the pleadings of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Buchwald, J.), dismissing the EEOC’s complaint against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (“Port Authority”), brought pursuant to the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d).     The district court concluded that the EEOC failed to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim that female and male attorneys at the Port Authority performed “equal work” despite receiving unequal pay.     Because the EEOC did not allege any facts supporting a comparison between the attorneys’ actual job duties, thereby precluding a reasonable inference that the attorneys performed “equal work,” we AFFIRM.  ...   COURT DECISION:     (PDF)   ...   (HTML)


   Bad Law:  NEW CALIFORNIA "YES MEANS YES" LAW REQUIRES MEN TO GET AN AFFIRMATIVE "YES" BEFORE SEX AND CONTINUED YESSES DURING SEX   ...   Coment From Another Site: Requires man to ask "hey is this still cool, still cool, are you planning on pressing charges" every 2 minutes ?  


   Special Panel:  Alvara v. Homeland  ...   COMMUNIST, MANAGEMENT HATING, TOP LABOR RELATIONS AND EEO OFFICIALS TEAM UP TO STRIKE-DOWN MSPB DECISION THAT SUSTAINED THE REMOVAL OF HOMELAND EMPLOYEE WHO PIMPED THE SYSTEM TO GET OUT OF WORKING THE GRAVEYARD SHIFT (SOCIALIST, TOP MSPB OFFICIAL, DISSENTS).   ...   On August 13, 2014, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or Board) certified this case to the Special Panel.      The Board certified the matter to the Special Panel because it found that, when ruling on this case, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission incorrectly interpreted a provision of civil service law, rule, or regulation.      The Board also found that the evidence in the record did not support the Commission’s decision and that the Commission’s decision is so unreasonable that it amounts to a violation of civil service law, rule, or regulation.   ...   SPECIAL PANEL DECISION:     (PDF)   ...   (HTML)


   CSC:  State v. Revels  ...   MURDER WAS THE CASE THAT THEY GAVE ME   ...  On the night of March 31, sometime shortly before 11 p.m., the victim, Bryan Davila, was walking on Crystal Avenue, near the Thames River Apartments, a three building complex in New London, Connecticut (apartment complex) MAP . A group of approximately eight to nine men, including the defendant, were walking closely behind him.    The victim crossed over from Crystal Avenue to State Pier Road. Most of the men in the group continued walking toward a nearby footbridge to a nearby housing project.    Two men in the group, however, one of whom was the defendant, remained near the victim. The defen- dant then ran toward the victim, who was on the side- walk on State Pier Road in front of a building housing an electrical supply company. When the victim attempted to run, the defendant fired numerous shots at the victim, who fell to the ground. The defendant then fled the scene on foot.      While canvassing the area of the apartment complex, Officer Justin Clachrie was approached by two women, Fidelia Carrillo and her younger sister. Because Carrillo spoke only Spanish, her younger sister translated for her. Carrillo explained to Clachrie that she had seen the shooting from her apartment windows on the fifth floor of 40–46 Crystal Avenue, a building in the apart- ment complex.  ...   COURT DECISION:     (PDF)   ...   (HTML)


   VA OIG:  ...   ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION, CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE GOVERNMENT AND INTERFERENCE OF A VA OFFICIAL FOR THE FINANCIAL BENEFIT OF A CONTRACTOR, VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, PROCUREMENT & LOGISTICS OFFICE, WASHINGTON, DC  ...   We substantiated that Ms. Susan M. Taylor, Deputy Chief Procurement Officer (DCPO), VHA, PLO, engaged in conduct prejudicial to the Government when she pressured contracting staff under her authority to give preference to and award a task order for reverse auction services to FedBid, Inc. (FedBid).    We also found that she engaged in a conflict of interest when she improperly acted as an agent of FedBid in matters before the Government, improperly disclosed non-public VA information to unauthorized persons, misused her position and VA resources for private gain, and engaged in a prohibited personnel practice when she recommended that a subordinate senior executive service (SES) employee be removed from SES during her probation period, as Ms. Taylor identified the subordinate as the person she suspected of making protected disclosures of Ms. Taylor’s ethic violations.    Further, we found that Ms. Taylor interfered with the VA Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) review of the FedBid contract and that she did not testify freely and honestly concerning her involvement in the solicitation and award of the task order to FedBid, as well as other matters. We made a criminal referral of the conflict of interest and false statements to the U. S. Department of Justice (DOJ), but they declined to criminally prosecute in favor of any appropriate administrative actions.     We also found that Ms. Taylor, Mr. William E. Dobrzykowski, former     MSPB DECISION:  ....   (PDF)


   11th Cir:  AirTran v. Elem  ...   THE NEXT TIME YOU HIRE A LOW DOWN, LYING, CHEATING, NO GOOD LAWYER; HIRE A SMART ONE TOO   ...  Brenda Elem sustained injuries in a car accident. Her employer, AirTran, paid $131,704.28 for her medical care as a result of her participation in its self-funded employee welfare benefit plan.      Elem accepted her medical benefits from AirTran, she acknowledged that AirTran had a first priority claim to all payments made by a third party concerning the car accident up to the $131,704.28 AirTran paid for her medical care.        Brenda Elem then sued the two drivers and settled with their insurance company, AIG, for $500,000.        In letter sent to AirTran, Brenda Elem’s attorney, Mr. Link, indicated that Elem had settled for only $25,000.      AirTran, however, found out about the complete settlement amount when Mr. Link, accidentally enclosed a copy of the $475,000 settlement check .      Airtran sought reimbursment and charged Elem and her attorneys with fraud.  ...   COURT DECISION:     (PDF)   ...   (HTML)


   FLRA:  AFGE, Council of Prison Locals 33, Local 506 v. DOJ, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Federal Correctional Complex, Coleman, Florida   ...     ...   The facility at issue here is a maximum-security penitentiary.   The prisoners’ recreation yard is bordered by a buffer zone, called the “compound.”     After the Agency decided to install two metal detectors (the compound detectors) in the compound, the Union submitted to the Agency a number of proposals, including the proposal at issue here.     Subsequently, the Union filed a negotiability appeal with the Authority; the Agency filed a statement of position; and the Union filed a response (the Union’s response).  ...   FLRA DECISION:     (PDF)   ...   (HTML)


   MSPB:  Doe v. Justice  ...   REMOVED FOR (1) FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A QUALIFICATION FOR HIS POSITION, AND (2) POSING AN OPERATIONAL SECURITY RISK   ...   The agency removed the appellant based on the charges of (1) failure to maintain a qualification for his position, and (2) posing an operational security risk to the office.     The appellant filed an appeal of his removal to the Board.     The administrative judge found that the second charge merged into the first charge, which was based on the appellant’s failure to maintain his eligibility to hold a Special-Sensitive, Level 4 position.     After determining that the charge was functionally equivalent to a security clearance determination, the administrative judge affirmed the appellant’s removal.     He rejected as unproven the appellant’s affirmative defenses of reprisal for whistleblowing, reprisal for equal employment opportunity (EEO) activity, and disability discrimination.     The appellant filed a petition for review.   ...   MSPB DECISION:     (PDF)   ...   (HTML)


   MSPB:  Burks v. Postal  ...   WHEN MSPB MITIGATED HIS REMOVAL TO A SUSPENSION, POSTAL ISSUED 2 MORE REMOVALS WITH SAME EFFECTIVE DATE   ...   The appellant filed a Board appeal challenging his removal.     On July 16, 2013, the administrative judge issued an initial decision in which he ordered the agency to cancel the appellant’s removal and substitute in its place a 30-day suspension without pay no later than 20 days after the initial decision became final.     The administrative judge also ordered the agency to pay the appellant the appropriate amount of back pay, interest, and benefits.     Neither party filed a petition for review, and therefore the initial decision became final on August 20, 2013.         On September 13, 2013, the appellant filed a petition for enforcement of the Board’s decision mitigating his removal.     He submitted a letter from the agency informing him that his removal was being reduced to a 30-day suspension, but that he was not entitled to any back pay because he had received two subsequent notices of proposed removal, both of which were to have the same effective date as the removal mitigated by the Board.     The agency indicated that the appellant had not filed Board appeals challenging those other removal actions, but that those matters were scheduled for arbitration in October 2013.     On November 13, 2013, the administrative judge issued a compliance initial decision denying the appellant’s petition for enforcement.  ...   MSPB DECISION:     (PDF)   ...   (HTML)


   FLRA:  HHS v. AFGE  ...   ARBITRATOR ORDERS HHS TO CHANGE EMPLOYEE'S RATING FROM "FULLY" TO "EXCEPTIONAL"   ...   Arbitrator Seymour Strongin found that the Agency violated the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement (dated December 10, 2010) and the Agency’s Performance Management and Appraisal Program (PMAP) when the Agency rated the grievant as fully successful – rather than exceptional – in one of her critical elements.     As a remedy, the Arbitrator directed the Agency to change the grievant’s rating for the critical element from fully successful to exceptional.     And because increasing the grievant’s critical-element rating would raise the grievant’s summary rating, the Arbitrator also directed the Agency to change the grievant’s summary rating from fully successful to exceptional.  ...   Here, HHS Appeals Arbitrator's Decision:  FLRA DECISION:     (PDF)   ...   (HTML)


   DCD:  Ridley v. VMT  ...   PLAINTIFF ASSERTS THAT “[T]HE REASONS FOR THE TERMINATION WERE NOT TRUE.”   ...   Plaintiff, an African American woman, was employed by defendant VMT Long Term Care Management, Inc. (“VMT”), as a home health aide from August 2004 until her termination on December 19, 2012.      Preceding plaintiff’s termination was an incident at the Washington Hospital Center.      Plaintiff was charged with client abandonment, conducting personal business during work hours, and engaging in heated arguments or outburst in front of clients. On December 19, 2012, “VMT terminated [plaintiff’s] employment.”      Plaintiff asserts that “[t]he reasons for the termination were not true.”      She alleges that “[a] white employee at Washington Hospital Center had called [her] racially derogatory names,” id., and that this same employee “made false allegations against [her] including falsely accusing her of abandoning a patient.”      Plaintiff alleges that, “[b]y firing her for false reasons that VMT knew were related to her race, VMT violated [her] rights under 42 U.S.C. [§] 1981.”      She demands judgment in her favor, compensatory damages, reinstatement to her position as a home health aide, and attorney fees and costs of litigation.  ...   COURT DECISION:     (PDF)   ...   (HTML)


   5th Cir:  EEOC v. Simbaki  ...   RESTAURANT OWNER CONCEDES THAT HIS RESTAURANT WAS A “GRAB-ASSY PLACE.”   ...   Plaintiffs Kimberly Kulig and Laura Baatz worked for the Berryhill Baja Grill & Cantina on Montrose Street in Houston, a franchise-location, owned and operated by Defendant Phillip Wattel.        While employed by Berryhill Montrose, Baatz and Kulig were sexually harassed by Wattel. Baatz and Kulig allege that restaurant owner Phillip Wattel:     • Groped, slapped, and bit them. Some of the slaps were reportedly so hard that they caused bruises.     • Harassed them verbally.     • Asked them to sign napkins giving him permission to grab their bottoms.     • Exposed himself.     • Kissed them without permission.             Restaurant owner, Phillip Wattel concedes that: • Berryhill Montrose was a “grab-assy place.”    • He patted Kulig on her bottom multiple times, and once spanked her so hard that she bruised.     • He bit Kulig.     • He asked Baatz to go out of town with him.     • He asked Baatz to have a child with him, but not in a “meaningful” way.   ...   COURT DECISION:     (PDF)   ...   (HTML)


   SPORT:  RACIST, SEXIST NFL, NBA RULES   SHOULD IMMEDIATELY BE EXTENDED TO GOLF, BASEBALL, HOCKEY, NASCAR, SOCCER, LACROSSE, WNBA

   MSPB:  Brown v. Defense  ...   THE BOARD GIVETH AND THE BOARD TAKETH AWAY   ...   The appellant served as an Accounting Technician with the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS). The position was classified as non-critical sensitive.     Defense removed the appellant based on a charge that the Washington Headquarters Service (WHS) Consolidated Adjudications Facility (CAF) had denied him eligibility to occupy a sensitive position.     During the 30-day advance notice period for the removal action, the agency temporarily detailed the appellant to a non-sensitive set of duties.        Following a hearing, the administrative judge reversed the appellant’s removal.   +++ +++ +++   For the following reasons, we GRANT the agency’s petition for review, DENY the appellant’s cross petition for review, REVERSE the initial decision, and SUSTAIN the appellant’s removal.  ...  PDF VERSION   ...  HTML VERSION


   MSPB:  Greer v. AirForce  ...   AIR FORCE PROPOSED REMOVING HIM FOR (1) DISCOURTEOUS CONDUCT AND (2) INAPPROPRIATE COMMENTS.   ...   The agency employed the appellant as a Motor Vehicle Operator.     On November 8, 2012, the agency issued a notice of proposed removal, charging the appellant with (1) discourteous conduct, and (2) inappropriate comments.     The charges stemmed from the appellant’s actions during a traffic stop.     On the same day as the notice of proposed removal, the appellant entered into a last chance agreement (LCA) with the agency.     Among other things, the LCA provided that the agency would hold the proposed removal in abeyance for 36 months, while the appellant would attend an approved anger management program, accept a 14-day suspension, and waive his Board appeal rights.     During the 36-month abeyance, the agency retained the right to reinstate the proposed removal if the appellant committed any act of misconduct.        Effective October 7, 2013, the agency removed the appellant for violating the LCA.     According to the agency, the violation stemmed from the appellant’s inappropriate comments to a supervisor.   ...   MSPB DECISION


   MSPB:  LaMour v. Treasury  ...   SHE DID NOT RETURN TO WORK DESPITE NUMEROUS DIRECTIONS TO DO SO   ...   The appellant was removed from her GS-8 Contact Representative position effective December 7, 2012, for being unavailable for duty.      As of early 2012, the appellant was on an extended leave of absence due to a medical condition.      According to the parties, she attempted to return to work in July 2012, but the agency would not allow her to return without a medical release.      On August 22, 2012, after receiving the medical release, the agency instructed the appellant to return to duty.      However, she did not return to work despite numerous directions to do so. (On August 22, August 24, August 27, September 10, and September 12, 2012, the agency directed the appellant to return to duty. )      On October 25, 2012, the agency proposed the appellant’s removal for being unavailable for duty and removed her effective December 7, 2012.      The appellant appealed her removal to the Board.   ...   MSPB DECISION


   6th Cir:  Saulsberry v. FedEx  ...   CHECK OUT THIS PRIVATE SECTOR FMLA, HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CASE   ...  Saulsberry is a part-time handler at FedEx.      As a handler, Saulsberry’s job duties include loading and unloading packages, documents, and dangerous goods from aircraft containers and FedEx vehicles.      On January 20, 2011, a few days before receiving the performance reminder, Saulsberry requested FMLA leave.      FedEx denied the request because Saulsberry “[had] not met the FMLA’s 1,250-hours-worked-requirement.”      Also on January 20, 2011, per his manager’s instructions, Saulsberry met with the FedEx doctor, who disqualified him from driving FedEx vehicles due to his vertigo.      FedEx policy required Saulsberry to be free of vertigo symptoms for sixty days before he could be re-certified to drive. (Pg ID 93.) Consequently, FedEx placed Saulsberry on a Temporary Return to Work (“TRW”) assignment which mandated that he “work no more than 20 hrs per week with temporary restrictions of no driving in a DOT capacity.”      On March 27, 2011, FedEx cleared Saulsberry to resume driving duties.      Plaintiff sued FedEx, alleging employment discrimination under Title VII, the FMLA, and the THRA.      Specifically, he alleged that he was subjected to a hostile work environment, experienced racial discrimination, and was not permitted to take FMLA leave.      In a short-form order, the district judge agreed with and adopted in full the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation granting summary judgment in favor of FedEx on all claims.   ...   Here, Saulsberry  Appeals To 6th Cir:   COURT DECISION


   MSPB:  Ellis v. USPS  ...   MSPB MITIGATES HIS DEMOTION TO A LETTER OF WARNING AND A GEOGRAPHIC REASSIGNMENT.   ...   The appellant petitioned for review of the initial decision that affirmed the agency’s action demoting him from the position of Supervisor, Customer Service, EAS-17, to his former craft position of City Letter Carrier, based on a charge of unacceptable conduct.      The agency demoted the appellant and reassigned him to a different duty station based on one charge of “Unacceptable Conduct – Misrepresentation of Mail Volume Reports.”      The agency alleged that the appellant intentionally and artificially inflated mail volumes on specified routes on six dates in September and October 2012.      Following a hearing, the administrative judge found that the appellant intentionally misrepresented mail volume reports for the dates referenced in the agency’s proposal notice.      In so finding, the administrative judge relied on the agency’s documentary evidence and witness testimony that the mail volumes recorded and the resulting carrier performance reported by the appellant were “absolutely not plausible,” “unheard of,” and “out of this world.”   The appellant has filed a timely petition for review.   ...   MSPB DECISION


   MSPB:  Travis v. Army  ...   SHE WAS REMOVED ON CHARGES OF EXCESSIVE ABSENTEEISM AND FAILURE TO MAINTAIN A FULL TIME WORK SCHEDULE   ...   Army removed the appellant from her position as a Program Analyst, GS-0343-12, at Fort Irwin, California.     She was removed on charges of Excessive Absenteeism and Failure to Maintain a Full Time Work Schedule, based on her leave usage, which included 2,077 hours of Leave without Pay (LWOP) and 957 hours of Absence without Leave (AWOL)     The agency alleged that she took unscheduled leave when she had no sick leave available and that she failed to provide adequate medical documentation.     The charges also included the allegation that she failed to report for work even after the agency approved a reasonable accommodation allowing her to work half-time.     Both charges were sustained, and the appellant appealed.  ...    MSPB DECISION


   OSC:  State v. Jackson  ...   LIBERALS CRYING BECAUSE HE'S ON DEATH ROW FOR HIS ROBBERY AND KILLING SPREE:    (1.) Super Wash Laundry robbery   (2.) Hobo Joe’s Bar robbery   (3.) Brickhouse Bar robbery   (4.) Howard Johnson’s Inn robbery   (5.) Walgreens robbery   (6.) Soap Opera Laundry Robbery    (7.) Aggravated murder of Tracy Pickryl   (8.) Attempted murder of Christy Diaz   ...   In the early morning hours of June 18, 2009, Tracy Pickryl and Christy Diaz were working at the Soap Opera Laundry. Around 4:30 a.m., Jeremiah Jackson walked into the laundry and approached them. According to Diaz, Jackson asked if he could have a discount because he had only a few items to wash. Pickryl replied that they could not give discounts. Jackson then pulled a gun and pointed it towards Pickryl’s waist. He then demanded, “[C]ome on, give me the money.” Jackson also pulled at a necklace Pickryl was wearing, but he was unable to break the chain.      He directed Pickryl and Diaz toward the front counter. Jeremiah Jackson then pointed his gun at Pickryl’s face and demanded, “[G]ive me the money.” Diaz gave Jackson $6 from her pocket. But Pickryl told Jackson, “[W]e don’t have no money here.” Jackson repeated, “[G]ive me the money.” Pickryl replied, “[D]ude, we don’t have no money.” Jackson grabbed Pickryl’s necklace again and the chain broke when she pulled away. Jackson then grabbed Pickryl’s bracelet, and she pulled back. According to Diaz, Pickryl turned her head toward Jackson and looked at him, and she looked down. Jackson then shot her in the face.     Diaz testified that Jackson turned the gun on her and said, “[G]ive me the money.” Diaz reached behind the microwave and handed him a pouch with money inside. Jackson pulled her toward a nearby office and tried to open it, but the door was locked. He then pointed the gun at her face and fired a shot. Diaz collapsed and thought she had been hit, because her ears were ringing and her face went numb. Jackson then ran out of the laundry.   ...   Here, Jeremiah Jackson  Appeals To OSC:   COURT DECISION


   FLRA:  Defense v. NAIL  ...  NEPOTISM:  WHEN MANAGEMENT DOES THE RIGHT THING, UNIONS, ARBITRATORS & FLRA TEAM TO DO WRONG   ...   After the grievant had worked for the Agency for many years, the Agency made the grievant’s nephew the grievant’s second-level supervisor.     Three years later, the Agency promoted the nephew, and he became the grievant’s third-level supervisor.     About two years after promoting the nephew to third-level supervisor, the Agency reassigned the grievant from the division in which he had worked for over twelve years to a different division.   A grievance was filed alleging that the reassignment violated Article IV, which provides that “all employees will be treated in a fair and equitable manner.”   The grievance went to arbitration.  ...   Here, Defense Appeals To FLRA:   HTML  ...  PDF


   8th Cir:  Doe v. Sammy Hagar  ...   A REAL ROCK STAR BILLIE JEAN CASE: THE PLAYBOY BUNNY vs SAMMY HAGAR OF VAN HALEN   ...  Plaintiff-appellant Jane Doe, a former a Playboy bunny, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment of dismissal in favor of defendant-appellee Sammy Hagar, a well-known rock musician.      After meeting in 1983, Jane Doe and Hagar engaged in a romantic relationship spanning several years. In 1988, Jane Doe became pregnant and believed that Hagar was the father of her child. Hagar denied paternity.      Jane Doe gave birth in February 1989 and the child died soon thereafter.      Twenty-two years later in 2011, Hagar published an autobiography in which he alleged that Jane Doe had extorted him by claiming she was pregnant with his child. Jane Doe brought suit against Hagar in Iowa state court alleging various causes of action, including libel per se.   ...   COURT DECISION  ...  ( caution, Hagar uses some colorfully graphic language )


   C.A.A.F:  U.S. v. Macdonald  ...   DID "CHANTIX" CAUSE THE THE ARMY PRIVATE TO FATALLY ATTACK PRIVATE (PVT) BULMER WHILE HE WAS SLEEPING ?  ...   At the time of his arrest, Appellant, was nineteen years old and had been in the Army for approximately a year.     Appellant was assigned to the supply room at Delta Company, Fort Benning, Georgia.     On April 18, 2008, a week shy of his nineteenth birthday, Appellant visited the Martin Army Community Hospital to seek help in quitting smoking. According to the medical record, he sought medical help because he had smoked up to a half pack of cigarettes daily for the past three years. During the visit, the Army doctor prescribed Chantix to Appellant as a smoking cessation drug.      On May 18, 2008, one month after the Army doctor prescribed Chantix, Appellant fatally attacked Private (PVT) Bulmer while he was sleeping, stabbing him to death. Prior to this attack, Appellant did not know nor had he ever interacted with PVT Bulmer.      At the time of Appellant’s attack, PVT Bulmer was a twenty- three-year-old recruit who had been in training for three days.  ...   COURT DECISION


   DcDc:  Lyles v. DcGov  ...   AS A SUPERVISOR, WHAT TO DO WHEN YOUR SUBORDINATE IS MESMERIZED WITH YOUR BUTT ?   ...   In the fall of 2006, Mr. Parks hired Steven Miller to join Ms. Lyles’s team.    Ms. Lyles served as Mr. Miller’s supervisor.    Ms. Lyles alleges that from March 2007 through August 2008, Mr. Miller “verbally and physically sexually harassed” her.    She alleges that Mr. Miller “made lewd gestures toward [her], including imitating that he was spanking [her].”    In addition, he “would go out of his way when passing [her] in the hall to brush up next to her.” Ms. Lyles also alleged that on or around August 2007, Mr. Miller “grabbed [her] breast while they were in [her] office.”    Even after he was transferred to a different office in November 2007, he would find ways to harass her, by “brush[ing] up close against [her] and star[ing] menacingly at” her.    In her formal complaint to the EEOC, Ms. Lyles stated that the sexual hostile work environment “consisted of [Mr. Miller] being inappropriate with his language. He would pat me on my buttocks and make gestures with his hands as if he was jingling [sic] a butt.”    He also told her he would have to take her somewhere to give her a spanking.   ...   COURT DECISION


   MSPB:  Putnam v. Homeland  ...   AS HOMELAND, ARMY, NAVY, AIRFORCE, DEFENSE CONTINUE TO ABUSE THE SECURITY CLEARANCE LAWS, THE LIBERAL PRESIDENT COULD PUT A STOP TO THE FLAGRANT ABUSES  -  BUT HE WON'T   ...   The appellant served as the Assistant Federal Security Director at the Grand Junction Regional Airport in Grand Junction, Colorado.      As a condition of her position, the appellant was required to maintain a security clearance.      On October 26, 2010, citing statements the appellant had made to local police, the agency placed the appellant on administrative leave.      Based upon the appellant’s statements to the police, the agency suspended the appellant’s security clearance on January 26, 2011, and it thereafter proposed the appellant’s indefinite suspension on February 1, 2011, citing the suspension of her security clearance “based on allegations regarding [her] mental health and personal conduct” as outlined in the agency’s January 26, 2011 letter.      In response to the appellant’s request for the information the agency relied on in proposing her suspension, the agency explained that it only relied on the notice it received from its Personnel Security Division that the appellant’s security clearance had been suspended.  ...   MSPB DECISION


   5th Cir:  Davis v. Fort Bend County  ...   WAS IT RETALIATION, RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION -or- WAS SHE AN INSUBORDINATE SUPERVISOR WHO GOT FIRED ?   ...   Fort Bend County, Texas, hired Lois Davis in December 2007 as a Desktop Support Supervisor responsible for supervising about fifteen information technology (“IT”) technicians.     In March 2011, Fort Bend County prepared to install personal computers, network components, and audiovisual equipment into its newly built Fort Bend County Justice Center.     As the Desktop Support Supervisor, Davis and her team were to “assist with the testing of the computers ...”     On June 28, 2011, Davis informed Fort Bend County that she would not be available to work the morning of Sunday July 3, 2011, allegedly “due to a previous religious commitment.” Davis testified that “[i]t was a special church service, and that I needed to be off that Sunday[,]     Fort Bend County did not approve her absence, stating that it “would be grounds for a write-up or termination.”     After Davis attended her church event and did not report to work, Fort Bend terminated Davis’s employment.  ...   Here, Lois Davis  Appeals To 5th Cir:  COURT DECISION


   TECH:  NICKI MINAJ AND SIR MIX-A-LOT SERVE UP A BIG _ _ _ _ DELIGHT with "Anaconda" Video   ...  [A fast riser, with over 80 millon views in 7 days]   In the recent past, flat ironing board _ _ _ _ s ruled.  Ampler women were bullied, called fat, unattractive and worse.  ‘Oh My Gosh, Look at Her _ _ _ _’  So they covered up in shame to hide their undesirable fat _ _ _ _s. Suicide rates soared for ample _ _ _ _ women.    Fast Forward to 2014, and the roles have reversed. The ample _ _ _ _ women are no longer the shameful, closeted, undesired, runner up second cousins to the "ironing boards."  They are now the most desired and REVERED (if God gave it, it must be good).    In the sex-charged, foul-mouthed, daisey duked, spandex-ridden, video "Anaconda," Nicki Minaj proudly boasts, in a Thriller, Dr. Frankenstein, mad scientist-ish laugh "He Loves This Fat _ _ _ _ ... Hah, Hah, Hah, Ha !!!"


   MSPB:  Camacho v. Army  ...   AFTER SHE PLAYED THE SEX CARD, THE HISPANIC CARD, AND THE DISABILITY CARD - ARMY STILL REMOVED HER.   ...   Prior to the action at issue, the appellant was told in a meeting that her GS-12 Program Analyst position was to be realigned.     At subsequent meetings, she repeatedly expressed her concerns about the realignment to a variety of management officials, as well as her belief that she could not work with, or in the vicinity of, the Deputy Brigade Commander, based upon his alleged threatening remark.     Her first day in RMB was to be September 14, 2009, but she never reported, providing evidence that she was suffering symptoms related to stress and had been diagnosed with anxiety disorder and panic disorder.     Thereafter the agency proposed to remove the appellant based on “Inability to perform (As a result of a Medical Condition).”     The agency subsequently upheld the proposed action..  ...   MSPB DECISION


   MSPB:  Rassenfoss v. Treasury  ...   I SHOULD RECEIVE A PRESUMED QSI FOR THE YEAR I WAS AWAY ON MILITARY LEAVE   ...   The appellant is a GS-12 Appeals Officer.     He was off on military leave from January 19, 2010 until March 4, 2011.     Thus, in December 2010, when the agency completed his performance appraisal for the period from December 1, 2009, to November 30, 2010, it did not give him a performance rating, but rather, designated him as “Not Ratable.     Because the appellant did not receive a performance rating in 2010, the agency did not give him a Quality Step Increase (QSI) for that year.     The appellant filed an appeal with the Board alleging that the agency discriminated against him for failure to award him a QSI in 2010.   ...   MSPB DECISION


   FLRA:  IFPTE v. Navy  ...   FLRA TELLS THE UNION THAT NO, NO, NO, NO, NO means NO !!!!!   ...   In reviewing the Union's appeal of the Arbitrator's decision in favor of Navy, FLRA determined that "there are six questions before us."      The first question is whether ... , the answer is NO.       The second question is whether ... , the answer is NO.       The third question is whether ... , the answer is NO.       The forth question is whether ... , the answer is NO.       The fiifth question is whether ... , the answer is NO.  ...   FLRA DECISION


   MSPB:  Dawson v. Agriculture  ...   MSPB WENT MEDIEVAL ON THIS GUY:  AGRICULTURE WINS ONE THEY PROBABLY SHOULDN'T HAVE   ...   In three separate appeals, the appellant challenges the agency’s determinations to indefinitely suspend him from his GS-0301-13 position as an Area Director with the agency’s Rural Housing Service in Camden, Alabama, effective November 24, 2012; remove him from his position, effective January 26, 2013; and deny his application for early retirement under VERA pursuant to authority delegated to the agency by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).  ...   MSPB DECISION


   TexAp:  Tata v. State  ...   THIS POOR VICTIM WAS CONVICTED FOR MURDER JUST BECAUSE SHE WENT TO TARGET TO PICK UP A FEW THINGS   ...   Appellant, Jessica Tata, was the owner and operator of Jackie’s Day Care, which she operated out of her home.     On the afternoon of February 24, 2011, appellant had seven children ranging in age from one to three years old under her care at her home.     Four of the children died as a result of a fire that day, and others were severely injured but survived.     Using appellant’s cell phone records, surveillance footage, and the testimony of witnesses, the state charged Jessica Tata with murder.     A jury convicted appellant, Jessica Tata, of felony murder and assessed her punishment at eighty years’ confinement and a $10,000 fine.  ...   Here, Jessica Tata  Appeals  COURT DECISION


   6th Cir:  Kroll v. Lake  ...   WHEN THE HOT HEADED, FEISTY, ARGUMENTATIVE, JEALOUS EMT REFUSED A MENTAL HEALTH REFERRAL, SHE WAS FIRED.   ...  In September 2003, White Lake Ambulance Authority hired Emily Kroll as an EMT. EMTs are responsible for responding to emergency calls, providing basic medical care, and safely transporting patients to the hospital.     In 2007, Kroll began an affair with Joshua Easton, her married coworker. Their relationship, which lasted for several months, was “rocky” and punctuated by frequent arguments.     Kroll’s personal conflicts with Easton began to affect her behavior at work. Easton claims that Kroll frequently sent him text messages and e-mails and screamed at him over the phone while he was working.     After Kroll had a personal altercation with one of her female coworkers, who she thought was also dating Joshua Easton, her supervisor expressed concern regarding her “immoral” sexual conduct and demanded that she undergo psychological counseling.     When Kroll refused, she was fired.     Kroll claims that WLAA violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by requiring a medical examination that was not “job-related and consistent with business necessity.”  ...   COURT DECISION


   MSPB:  Blatt v. Army  ...   REVERSED   ...    REVERSED   ...    REVERSED   ...    REVERSED   ...    REVERSED   ...    REVERSED   ...   The appellant was formerly employed as a GS-9 Physical Security Compliance Inspector. The position which required him to obtain and maintain a security clearance.     On July 25, 2013, the agency proposed to remove the appellant for failure to maintain a condition of employment, specifically, a security clearance.     On August 22, 2013, the agency issued a decision that upheld the proposal, warranting the appellant’s removal, effective August 30, 2013.     The appellant elected to voluntarily retire that same day.     On appeal, the appellant challenged the removal on the basis that the agency had not yet made a final determination on his security clearance and that the matter was still under reconsideration.   ...   MSPB DECISION


   CAL:  People v. Merriman  ...   MURDER:   GANG GIRL   ...    SHE HAD A "THANG" FOR VIOLENT WHITE SUPREMACIST GANG GUYS   ...  Katrina Montgomery was 16 years old in 1989 when she started dating Mitch Sutton, one of the founding members of a Ventura County White supremacist gang called the Skin Head Dogs (SHD).     Defendant, Justin James Merriman, who also was 16 years of age at that time, belonged to the same gang. Sutton brought Katrina along to SHD parties where she socialized with his fellow gang members and their wives and girlfriends, some of whom became close friends of hers.     Early in Sutton and Katrina?s relationship, Sutton enlisted in the Army and was sent to Germany. Katrina moved to Germany for eight months to be with him. By the time Sutton returned from his three years of military service in 1992, he and Katrina had broken up.     Meanwhile, between January 1990 and March 1992, Katrina was corresponding and conversing with defendant, Justin James Merriman, on a regular basis while he was in custody in various juvenile detention facilities and in state prison.     In March 1992, defendant wrote to Katrina after she had visited him in prison, saying, “You know deep down inside you enjoy[ed] saying I was „your? long lost locked-up hubby. ... In the same letter, defendant apologized for his “crude and rude but lewd sexual gestures” during the visit and promised next time “not to toss you around like one of them blowup sex dolls.”     Dispite his violent behavior, Katrina Montgomery continued to date Justin James Merriman after his release from prison.   ...   COURT DECISION


   CAC:  Chief Disciplinary Counsel v. Zelotes  ...   ATTORNEY SAYS HE SHOULD NOT BE DISCIPLINED BECAUSE "I Did Not Have Sex With My Client"   ...   NOTE:  The Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel is an agency responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct by lawyers.       ‘‘Michael Aliano (Michael) and his wife Terry Aliano (Terry), Connecticut residents, were having some problems in their marriage. On March 19, 2010, they were in New London . . . to try to reconcile and were at a jazz bar together. The defendant, Attorney Zenas Zelotes, was there with his girlfriend, Sharon [Wise], and struck up a conversation with the Alianos.     The couples exchanged phone numbers and began seeing one another as couples, in a social capacity. The defendant became friendly with Michael and Terry and socialized together as a threesome.     Thereafter, in June, 2010, the defendant started seeing Terry alone, going on walks in the park together, going to movies, for drinks and began ‘dating.’     ‘‘The defendant had an ‘intimate’ relationship with Terry. . . . He believed he had an obligation to help her proceed with her divorce, and promote her welfare and make her a happier person. On more than one occasion, their date consisted of sitting close together at the kitchen island in Terry’s and Michael’s marital home (without the presence of Michael), holding hands, sharing a glass of wine, with candles, music and dimmed lights. . . . Their first kiss came on such an occasion on September 24, 2010. The defendant filed his appearance on behalf of Terry in the Aliano divorce case three days later on September 27, 2010. . . . ‘‘Sometime in December, 2010, Michael came home earlier than expected . . . and the defendant and Terry were again sitting together at the kitchen island with the same ambience and sharing wine. The defendant described Michael’s demeanor (not surprisingly) as antagonistic. . . .     ‘‘Michael filed a motion in the divorce case to disqualify the defendant from representing Terry in the matter. [The court] Shluger, J., granted the motion on January 24, 2011. After the disqualification, the defendant and Terry ceased their intimate relationship and presumably their ‘dating.’ . . .     ‘‘The plaintiff’s presentment complaint contains several alleged violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct. These include [rule] 1.8 (j). This section prohibits sexual relations with a client unless the relationship predates the representation. The defendant denies any sexual relations with Terry at any time during their courtship. The court cannot find, one way or the other, on this issue, but focuses rather on rules 1.7 (a) (2) and rule 8.4 (4). . . .   ...  DECISION


   MSPB:  Bourlet v. OPM  ...   OPM ORDERED THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY TO REMOVE THE APPELLANT FROM HIS POSITION   ...   OPM ordered the Department of the Navy to remove the appellant from his position as a Utility Systems Repairer Operator based on its determination, following a background investigation, that he was unsuitable for federal employment.     OPM raised three charges affecting the appellant’s suitability for employment:     (1) misconduct or negligence in employment;     (2) criminal or dishonest conduct; and     (3) material, intentional false statement or deception or fraud in examination or appointment.     All of these charges related to events that occurred in connection with the appellant’s employment as a School Patrol Officer with the Tacoma School District from January 2009 until his separation effective June 28, 2012.     Following a hearing, the administrative judge found that OPM proved all three of its charges, but not all of the specifications, by preponderant evidence.   ...   Here, Bourlet Appeals To MSPB:   DECISION


   MSPB:  Alvara v. Homeland  ...   BIG REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION FIGHT:  EEOC GETS SMACKED DOWN AFTER CHANGING ITS OWN LAW TO HELP SHADY COP PIMP HOMELAND   ...   Based on the foregoing, we find no compelling reason to defer to the EEOC’s decision.     Accordingly, we conclude that as a matter of law the EEOC decision is based upon an incorrect interpretation of civil service law, rule, or regulation. In the alternative, we find that the evidence in the record does not support the EEOC decision, and the EEOC decision is so unreasonable that it amounts to a violation of civil service law, rule, or regulation.     Thus, the Board cannot agree with the EEOC decision.     We therefore REAFFIRM our prior decision.     ( the appellant is NOT a “qualified individual with a disability” BECAUSE he cannot perform the fundamental job duties of his position )   ...   MDECISION


   SCC:  State v. Crenshaw  ...   THIS SAD, HURTFUL, VIOLENT CASE MAKES ME ASHAMED TO BE A MAN  ...  Ashley Peoples, lived with her mother and stepfather in the town of Enfield, Connecticut. A friend and coworker, Elisa Astacio, described Ashley as ‘‘the brightest star. Everyone loves her, everyone loves her personality; everybody was friends with her.’’   At around 6 or 7 p.m. that evening, the defendant, Darryl Crenshaw, went to the apartment of Eruverto Flores, Astacio’s boyfriend, at 777 Maple Avenue in Hartford. When the defendant entered Flores’ apartment, Flores realized that Ashley Peoples was trailing behind the defendant. Ashley ‘‘had a blood clot in her eye,’’ the inside of her left eye was ‘‘red’’ and ‘‘bloodshot,’’ and the area under her eye was swollen. Flores testified that it was ‘‘obvious’’ that the defendant had hit Ashley.     The defendant was yelling and appeared upset. He exclaimed that Ashley had ‘‘disrespected’’ him because she was flirting with another man at the salon. He claimed that Ashley ‘‘disrespected [him] on [his] side of town in front of all [his] peoples, [and he was] not [going to] let no girl disrespect [him] and make [him] look bad in front of everybody.’’ At some point, the defendant ‘‘mushed [Ashley] in the head,’’ meaning that he used an open hand to push her head away from him. Flores then jumped in between the defendant and Ashley and told him to ‘‘chill out’’ and not engage in such actions in his apartment.     Ashley then went into the bathroom. After Flores spoke to the defendant in an attempt to calm him down, Flores went to check on Ashley. Ashley was wiping tears from her eyes.  ...  COURT DECISION


   D.C. Cir:  Ward v. McDonald  ...   THIS CASE GIVES A RARE PEEK BEHIND THE CURTAIN OF VETERANS AFFAIRS' "BOARD OF VETERANS APPEALS"   ...   Ella Ward was an attorney advisor at the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA)     When a veteran’s claim for benefits is denied by a local or regional office of the VA, the veteran may appeal to the BVA. The judges who decide such appeals are assisted by attorney advisors who read the case files, review the evidence and prepare draft opinions.     Beginning in 2001, Ward served as one such attorney advisor. Hers was the quintessential desk job—reading, writing, typing—with the only physical duty being that she had to carry sometimes unwieldy case files from the judges’ offices to her desk. She typically worked eight- to ten-hour days and, like her colleagues, was expected to produce three “credits” per week—each credit corresponding to the preparation of roughly one case.     In 2005, Ward began to suffer from chronic severe lymphedema of the lower right extremity, which causes her right foot and leg to swell with retained fluid. The condition substantially limits Ward’s ability to go up and down stairs, carry moderately heavy case files and travel to and from work. It is exacerbated by long periods of sitting at a desk. To manage the condition, Ward must frequently drain excess fluid, elevate her leg, bandage it and/or place it in a compression machine. The treatments take one to three hours at a time and some require her to disrobe.  ...   COURT DECISION


   FLRA:  AFGE v. GSA  ...   GSA MAMAGEMENT DECIDES TO PLAY TOUGH WITH AFGE REGARDING PERFORMANCE RATING GRIEVANCE   ...   AFGE filed a grievance alleging that an employee should have received a higher rating in two critical elements on his performance rating. At the step-one grievance meeting, AFGE asked the Agency to provide the employee’s performance records, but the Agency refused.     The Union then elevated the grievance to the second step of the grievance procedure. In addition to appealing the Agency’s denial of the step-one grievance, AFGE also sought the grievant’s performance records through “enforcement” of two additional provisions of the parties’ agreement: Article 19, Section 11 – which requires supervisors to “maintain records of performance” – and Article 4, Section 5 – which incorporates the Agency’s duty, under § 7114(b)(4) of the Statute, to provide certain information upon request.     The Agency denied the Union’s grievance, and the Union invoked arbitration.  ...   Here, AFGE Appeals:  FLRA DECISION


FOUNDMAGAZINE.COM IS A GUILTY PLEASURE FOR THE TWISTED AT HEART - If you haven't had the pleasure of reading the twisted letters, notes, cards, etc people have found lying on the streets, in trash cans, or in the drawers of thrift store furniture, now you know.   Caution, some of the language used in the found items is a bit too racy (suggestive, naughty, sexy, spicy) for the snobs amongst us.   NOTE:  If you are a snob, who just likes to complain and start trouble, don't go to FOUNDMAGAZINE.COM.
AND HOW DID FOUNDMAGAZINE GET STARTED ? One snowy winter night in Chicago back in 2000, Davy went out to his car and found a note on his windshield — a note meant for someone else, a guy named Mario:


Picture


   IL App:  People v. Mimes  ...   YOU KNOW IT'S WACK, WHEN THE INNOCENT VICTIM IS A DRUG DEALER SELLING HEROIN IN A CHICAGO HOUSING PROJECT   ...  At trial, the testimony of the 17-year-old victim, Lenard Richardson and his older brother, Leonard Cole, established that Richardson was selling heroin in a Chicago public housing building on the evening in question when he was robbed by defendant, Martell Mimes, and three other offenders.    Martell Mimes brandished a silver pistol, took Richardson’s bundle of narcotics and about $200, and hit Richardson in his jaw with the pistol.    Martell Mimes was arrested and charged with the November 8, 2005 attempted first degree murder and aggravated battery with a firearm of the 17-year-old victim, Lenard Richardson.    Martell Mimes was also charged with eight counts of AUUW based on allegations that he was carrying an uncased, loaded and accessible firearm in public and did not have a firearm owner’s identification (FOID) card, was under 21 years of age, and was involved in street gang activity.  ...   COURT DECISION


   MSPB:  Clay v. AmeriCorps  ...   THESE SMALL FEDERAL AGENCIES LACK HR COMPETENCIES COMMONLY FOUND IN LARGER AGENCIES   ...   AmeriCorps effected an action under 5 U.S.C. chapter 75, reducing the appellant in grade/pay band from her position as Director, Office of Emergency Management, NY-04, to the position of Assistant Director of Projects and Partnership, AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps, NY-03.     Acknowledging that neither the appellant’s conduct nor performance was at issue,     the agency indicated that the action was necessary because of organizational changes eliminating the need for the appellant’s position, although it stated that it was not taking the action pursuant to the reduction-in-force (RIF) regulations.     On appeal, the administrative judge reversed the action, finding in her July 10, 2013 initial decision that the agency failed to prove that the action promoted the efficiency of the service or that the penalty was reasonable.     The action did not involve a change in salary.     She ordered the agency to cancel the action and to reinstate the appellant to her previous position or an equivalent position and pay band and to award her back pay and benefits for the time period in question..  ...   Here, AmeriCorps Appeals To MSPB:   MSPB DECISION


   MSC  State v. Nickerson  ...   CONSIDERING ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THIS BRUTAL RAPE CASE --- IF THE RACES WERE SWITCHED, HE WOULD BE FREE ???   ...   To protect her privacy, the complainant has been given a pseudonym.   In June, sixteen-year old Emma was living in a motel room in South Attleboro, Massachusetts, with her alcoholic parents and younger sister.     The family had moved to the motel after Emma became involved in a physical altercation with a cousin, causing her family to leave the home they were sharing with Emma’s aunt and cousins.     At the time, Emma had dropped out of high school, but was working to obtain a GED; she also worked part-time at a fast-food restaurant in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. Emma was on probation at the time, with an 8 p.m. curfew that had been imposed by the Family Court as a result of her having been reported missing to the police several times.     Despite this curfew, however, on June 30, Emma’s mother drove her to a friend’s house near Miriam Hospital in Providence at around 10 p.m., with the understanding that she would return for her later that evening.     Emma [testified that she] and her friend watched television, played video games, and smoked marijuana.     The next day, Emma reported that she had been raped.  ...   ( caution, this is a brutal rape case )     COURT DECISION


   CAC  Valente v. Securitas  ...   THE QUEST TO CATCH THE OFFICE "PERV" SEEKING A PAIR OF THE SENIOR MANAGER'S PANTIES   ...   In November, the anonymous note of a sexual nature was left on Ms. Valente’s desk.     The note contained a request for a pair of Ms. Valente’s underpants and verbal descriptions of her, all of which Valente found offensive.     Valente reported this November incident to her supervisor. Security was instructed to be especially vigilant of the area around Ms. Valente’s office. Howarth, in turn, ordered that surveillance be increased around Valente’s office.     In December, a second similarly offensive note was left on Valente’s desk, again seeking a pair of her underpants and apologizing to her if the first note had given her offense.     With Valente’s permission, Affinion installed a hidden camera in her office in late December, to ascertain who was leaving the notes.     The motion activated security camera began recording on December 28. It revealed that [the perv] entered Valente’s office on multiple occasions. In the first instance, recorded December 31, [the perv] is observed sitting in a chair near the door of Valente’s office. A recording from January 3, showed [the perv] entering Valente’s office and rummaging through her desk drawer.     A recording from January 3, showed [the perv] entering Valente’s office and rummaging through her desk drawer.     On January 6, the recording showed[the perv] enter Ms. Valente’s office and ___bate into a cup on her desk.     Ms. Valente sued for invasion of privacy, negligence, and negligent infliction of emotional distress;    she also sued or negligent supervision and [the perv] for intentional infliction of emotional distress and battery.   ...   COURT DECISION











contactUS