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

Sonny Boy Williamson

SALEM WITCH HUNT 2014
They Lie, Cry and Say Anything
To Get Some Free Settlement Money.

And The Others Just Pile On,
In Hope Of Getting Some Money Too.


   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