P  E  R  M  E  R  I  C  A  .  C O M
ONLINE SINCE 1995


DECISONS :    A L L    MSPB (P)    MSPB (N)    EEOC    SUPREME    TERMINATION    HARASSMENT    SEXUAL    MILITARY    FLRA      FSIP      EEOC      MSPB      VA OIG
OPM-TRANSMITTALS      OPM FAQs      GOOGLE SCHOLAR      MIL-CAAFLOG    REFERENCE-DESK      WRITER'S ALMANAC
...

BLUES HOUR   WPFW 89.3 FM   M - F   12:00 NOON EST   New Host Daily     PLAYLIST  |  STREAM ONLINE  |  ARCHIVE  |  WPFW fm

drive safely ... save lives ... drive safely

FEDERAL BENEFITS OPEN SEASON NOV 14 TO DEC 12

OPM WEBSITE   ♦ OPM Coronavirus Guidance   ♦ Guidance And Notifications FOR FEDS Performance Management Tips for a Hybrid Workplace.

SUPREME COURT ORDERS TRUMP TO RELEASE INCOME TAX RECORDS
attempt to continue hiding income tax records is denied by top court
( records may reveal falsified records to receive a 72 million dollar income tax return, and more. )

(ORDER LIST: 598 U.S.)
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2022
ORDER IN PENDING CASE

22A362
TRUMP, DONALD J., ET AL.
V.
COMM. ON WAYS AND MEANS, ET AL.

The application for stay of the mandate presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is denied.

The order heretofore entered by The Chief Justice is vacated.

US Supreme Court Order :   ( .pdf )

♦       Nov 22,  .. TN_WC.:    Hopson v. Driven Brands  ..  Michael Hopson injured multiple body parts in a car accident while working for Driven Brands Holdings on August 18, 2021. Driven Brands accepted the claim, authorized treatment with various physicians, and paid temporary total disability benefits during periods when authorized doctors took him off work.    The parties now disagree regarding Mr. Hopson’s request for additional medical benefits. Although Driven Brands agreed to pay for all authorized treatment, it disputes Mr. Hopson’s entitlement to additional treatment and temporary disability benefits.    After an expedited hearing on November 2, 2022, the Court holds Mr. Hopson is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits on his entitlement to additional treatment with a dentist and neurologist, and to past temporary total disability benefits from July 1 to 19, 2022.    The work accident caused injuries to Mr. Hopson’s head, neck, left shoulder, teeth and eyesight. He testified that he went to the emergency room afterward but offered no records from that treatment. Mr. Hopson has received treatment from many authorized physicians since then.    The authorized treatment began in September 2021, when Mr. Hopson chose Dr. Malcolm Steele from a panel of physicians. He saw Dr. Steele’s physician assistant throughout his initial treatment. At the first visit, she diagnosed a left-shoulder contusion, neck strain, headache, broken tooth and visual floaters, and she ordered physical therapy. She referred Mr. Hopson to Promise Dental for his teeth, and an ophthalmologist, Dr. Stuart Shofner, for his vision. On October 19, the physician assistant released Mr. Hopson to full- duty work.    In the meantime, Mr. Hopson saw Dr. Shofner in October. He noted , “[p]t has cataracts, non-work-related,” and returned him to full-duty work. According to Mr. Hopson, Dr. Shofner also prescribed polarized sunglasses, but he did not provide any evidence relating the need for glasses to a work-related condition.    As to his teeth, Mr. Hopson was seen at Promise Dental on November 1. The dentist recommended an extraction and bone graft. Promise Dental sent Mr. Hopson to another dental practice to begin the treatment; according to Mr. Hopson, the dentist at Promise Dental does not perform the required dentistry. An implant remains necessary. Mr. Hopson testified that the dental work is incomplete because the provider (Promise Dental or possibly the other dental practice) requested payment upfront.    Driven Brands argued that Mr. Hopson declined to sign a form agreeing to be liable if the carrier did not pay the bill, but counsel did not introduce this form.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Nov 22,  .. 4th Cir.:    Squire v. Identity, Inc.  ..  In October 2014, Deidra Squire, a black woman, began contracting for Identity, Inc., a non-profit focused on assisting Latino families in high-poverty areas of Montgomery County, Maryland. The following month, Identity made Squire a full-time employee as “Program Manager” for its two youth centers. In this role, Squire oversaw more than ten staff members, weekly meetings, and a budget.    In early 2017, Identity reorganized its personnel in the youth centers. Under the new structure, Squire had reduced responsibilities and purview of only one youth center.    Marie Dent Turner, also a black woman, was placed in an equivalent role at the other youth center, and Fresia Guzman, a Latino woman, was to supervise both Squire and Turner.    Neither of Gruzman’s subordinates were to last at Identity. First, Turner resigned in July, which Squires attributes to “frustration” with the reorganization, and was replaced by a Latino woman. Then, a year later, Identity eliminated Squire’s position—citing a lack of funding—and terminated her.    Identity proceeded to give Turner’s Latino successor a larger role with responsibility over both youth centers. Although Squire had spent more time working at Identity’s youth centers, Turner’s successor had more experience at Identity overall.    Some four months after Squire’s departure, Identity hired a Latino woman to be a part-time “Junior Case Manager,” which Squire alleges was similar to her previous role.    In the backdrop of these personnel changes, Squire makes additional allegations about Identity’s workplace environment. She alleges that a supervisor was fired in 2015 after raising concerns about “organizational racial discrimination” toward black employees.    She further alleges that employees quit over concerns that Identity’s focus on Latinos was compromising its ability to procure funds from Montgomery County.    Additionally, Squire asserts that Identity’s CEO referred to Latinos as “our people” and insisted on keeping the organization’s motto, “Serving Latino youth and their families,” despite complaints from black employees and clients.    Finally, Squire attests that she raised concerns about the reorganization with a senior manager, who would not meet with her and “retaliated” by promoting Guzman, her supervisor.    After her termination, Squire filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Nov 22,  .. 7th Cir.:    Montgomery v. Scialla Associates  ..  Jean Montgomery’s suit arises out of her removal from her job managing a Chicago post office in 2012.    To help her bring an administrative appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board, she sought assistance from the National Association of Postal Supervisors, a nonprofit management association.    To assist her, the association retained Scialla Associates, an organization that employs both lawyers and non-lawyer advocates to represent clients before the Merit Systems Protection Board. The organization designated a non-lawyer advocate, William Simpson, as her representative for the hearing before the administrative judge. (Advocates in these hearings are not required to be lawyers. 5 U.S.C. § 7701(a).)    After the administrative judge affirmed her dismissal, Montgomery unsuccessfully appealed the decision to the Board, and then to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.    Montgomery then brought this action in federal district court against Simpson, Scialla Associates, its president Charles Scialla, and the National Association of Postal Supervisors.    In her operative complaint Montgomery alleged that   (1) all the defendants breached a contract to provide her with a lawyer advocate;   (2) all the defendants fraudulently misrepresented that Simpson was a lawyer; and   (3) the Scialla defendants committed professional negligence based on Simpson’s poor performance in the appeal.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Nov 22,  .. NYSC_AD:    Jones v. New York City Tr. Auth.  ..  Claimant Jones, a train conductor for the self-insured employer, sustained work-related injuries to her left wrist in August 2019 and was awarded workers' compensation benefits.    The employer later raised the issue of Claimant Jones's violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a.    Following various proceedings, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (hereinafter WCLJ) found that Claimant Jones had violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by failing to disclose certain work activities and imposed the mandatory penalty rescinding any awards previously paid by the employer from August 16, 2019 to March 1, 2021, as well as a discretionary penalty disqualifying her from receiving future awards with respect to this claim.    Thereafter, Claimant Jones filed an application for review by the Workers' Compensation Board utilizing form RB-89, challenging the WCLJ's violation determination.    Following receipt of the employer's rebuttal, the Board denied Claimant Jones's application, finding that she had failed to comply with the requirements of 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (1) by properly completing a response to question number 15 on form RB-89.    Claimant Jones appeals.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)



♦       Nov 18,  .. Fed Cir.:    Delgado v. DOJ (ATF)  ..  The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (the “agency”) posted Mr. Delgado in Puerto Rico as a Special Agent. Between 2005 and 2006, Mr. Delgado repeatedly requested the agency change his post to Chicago. After multiple denials of his request for transfer, Mr. Delgado filed an Equal Employment Opportunity complaint.    Mr. Delgado also filed a discrimination claim against the agency in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Mr. Delgado continued to request and be denied transfer until he resigned in 2006.    In 2009, Mr. Delgado filed an appeal before the Merit Systems Protection Board (the “Board”), alleging that he had been constructively removed from his position when the agency refused to transfer him.    The Board later dismissed the appeal without prejudice so that Mr. Delgado’s newly obtained counsel could refile an appeal after completing his review of the record.    Mr. Delgado refiled an appeal in January 2010, alleging that his supervisor discriminated against him for not speaking Spanish and threatened his career.    In January 2011, Mr. Delgado and the agency entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement”) to resolve the district court litigation and the appeal to the Board.    Under the Settlement, the agency would cancel Mr. Delgado’s resignation, the agency would then reinstate and post him in Chicago, and the agency would pay both “the employer’s and employee’s share of Federal Employee Retirement System contributions from the date of resignation until the effective date of cancellation of the resignation.”    The Settlement also required the agency to pay $20,000 for Mr. Delgado’s attorney fees and costs accrued in district court and in appeal to the Board. In signing the Settlement, Mr. Delgado “waive[d] any claims of back pay or any other damages of any kind whatsoever.” Mr. Delgado’s appeal to the Board was dismissed as a result. The agency cancelled Mr. Delgado’s resignation and then reinstated and posted him in Chicago.     ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Nov 18,  .. 8th Cir.:    Slayden v. CBM  ..  Mr. Slayden worked as a security officer at the Center for Behavioral Medicine ( CBM ) for around 21 years before he resigned in December 2019. On August 9, 2018, Slayden filed a grievance with CBM’s Human Resources department about his supervisor Mike Seward’s alleged harassment. HR had an investigator look into Slayden’s grievance and found his complaints unsubstantiated.    On July 24, 2019, Slayden filed charges with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights (MCHR) and the EEOC. The description attached to the EEOC charge listed specific incidents of Seward’s harassment only until August 10, 2018.    Although the charge indicated that the discrimination was a “continuing action,” and listed October 16, 2018, as the latest date of discrimination, the description merely stated that HR decided Slayden’s internal grievance was unsubstantiated on October 16, 2018.    Slayden then filed this lawsuit, alleging a racially hostile work environment, disparate treatment based on race, and retaliation .... Slayden also argued that he was constructively discharged.    Slayden testified that Seward was the only person who discriminated against him, and that Seward did nothing that Slayden considered retaliatory, discriminatory, or harassing after Slayden filed his grievance with HR on August 9, 2018. After filing the grievance, Slayden actively avoided Seward by leaving work by the back door.    Slayden also testified to three incidents that he considered retaliation by HR, all of which happened in mid-to-late 2019:   (1) a letter he received falsely stating that he requested leave without pay;   (2) a written or verbal communication about something that Slayden can’t specifically recall; and   (3) not allowing Slayden to come to work for two weeks while he recovered from finger surgery when his doctor said he could work on light duty.    The district court granted summary judgment to CBM, finding that Slayden’s hostile work environment and disparate treatment claims were time-barred and that Slayden failed to exhaust administrative remedies for his retaliation claims.    It also held that, to the extent that Slayden reframed his claims as a constructive discharge claim, he did not exhaust it.    “We review a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment de novo.”  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Nov 18,  .. FLRA:    NTEU v. Comptroller of the Currency  ..  The grievant worked was employed by the US Department of the Treasury, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.    The grievant lived in Orange, Texas and worked as a bank examiner in the Agency’s New Orleans, Louisiana field office (New Orleans office). This position required the grievant to travel several times a year from Orange to the New Orleans office, and to banks in Mississippi and Alabama to participate in bank examinations.    As a single mother, the grievant began to experience childcare issues due to work travel. Consequently, she began working a part-time schedule in 2018. Then, in January 2019, the grievant requested a hardship transfer (transfer) from the New Orleans office to the Agency’s Houston, Texas field office (Houston office).    The Agency denied the transfer alleging a “lack of an appropriate opening and business need in the Houston office.”    The Union filed a grievance on February 5, 2021 alleging that the Agency violated the parties’ agreement and Title VII when it denied the transfer. In a merits award, the Arbitrator found that the Agency violated the parties’ agreement when it denied the transfer.    The Arbitrator also found that the denial violated Title VII because it was unlawful retaliation for the grievant’s past protected activity, in which the grievant filed an equal-employment-opportunity complaint related to alleged timekeeping issues. The Arbitrator directed the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing “what, if any, remedial relief should be awarded.”    On October 31, 2021, the Arbitrator issued a remedial award. In the remedial award, the Arbitrator determined that the Agency’s retaliatory denial of the transfer was an unjustified and unwarranted personnel action that caused the grievant to suffer a withdrawal or reduction of pay and benefits.    In determining the amount of backpay to which the grievant was entitled, the Arbitrator noted an email from the grievant’s supervisor stating that the grievant “would return to full-time status if [the grievant] were able to work in the Houston office.”    The Arbitrator concluded that if the Agency had granted the transfer, the grievant would have resumed a full-time schedule in the Houston office. Therefore, the Arbitrator found that the grievant was entitled to backpay for lost wages from working part-time in New Orleans as opposed to full-time in Houston.    However, because the Agency instituted a maximum telework policy in March 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (pandemic), the Arbitrator found that the grievant could have, but did not, return to a full-time schedule by utilizing maximum telework.    Based on these findings, the Arbitrator concluded that the Agency “sustained its burden” to establish that the grievant failed to mitigate damages because “once the grievant could have performed [the bank examiner] duties [at home] as a result of the telework policy . . . , switching back to a full-time schedule would have been a ‘reasonable effort’ to [mitigate].”    Based on his conclusion that the grievant failed to mitigate her damages, the Arbitrator limited the grievant’s backpay to the period of January 2019 to March 2020 – the period between when the Agency denied the transfer and when the grievant started teleworking.    The Union filed exceptions to the award on November 30, 2021,    and the Agency filed an opposition on December 22, 2021.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Nov 17,  .. 8th Cir.:    Burdess v. Cottrell  ..  Since 2001, Mr. Burdess has worked as a car hauler for Jack Cooper Transport Company (JCT)—a registered transporter of motor vehicles that regularly transports vehicles across the nation—at its Wentzville, Missouri terminal. Burdess describes his primary job duties as loading six to nine vans or large SUVs onto a vehicle hauler, securing the vehicles, and driving the load to another state. JCT uses vehicle haulers manufactured by Cottrell, which utilize a “tie-down rachet system.”    According to Burdess, to secure the vehicles with this system, he attaches eight-to-ten-pound chains to four places on the frame of each vehicle and then tightens each chain by pulling down on a “tie-down” bar connected to the ratchet system, which requires Burdess to jerk his arms forcefully at or above his shoulders. He estimates that pulling down on the tie-down bar requires him to exert roughly 100 pounds of pressure.    Burdess’s job has inflicted a heavy toll on his physical health. In 2001, Burdess sustained an injury to his back while bending and squatting as he worked on a vehicle. In 2002, Burdess experienced a sudden pain in his right shoulder when he pulled on a tie-down bar while securing a load of vehicles. Also in 2002, Burdess struck his head on a steel beam and sustained a laceration, which required sutures.    In 2003, Burdess fell backwards off of his truck and sustained injuries to his knee. In 2007, Burdess again noted pain in his right shoulder but apparently did not receive any treatment.    In 2008, Burdess developed a sudden pain in his left hand and elbow when he reached up to tie cords together. Though he was diagnosed with a left elbow and forearm strain, he was able to return to work. In 2012, Burdess complained of pain in a finger on his left hand.    There was no numbness, but the pain was aggravated by grasping.    One morning, Gregory Lynn Burdess woke up in an Illinois motel room without any feeling in his arms; he was later diagnosed in Missouri with bilateral shoulder impingement syndrome.    Four years later, Burdess and his wife, Lisa Burdess, filed this action against Cottrell, Inc., the manufacturer of the ratchet system that allegedly caused Burdess’s injury.    In granting Cottrell’s motion for summary judgment, the district court found that Illinois’s two-year statute of limitations applied to Burdess’s cause of action instead of Missouri’s five-year statute of limitations, thus barring Burdess’s and his wife’s claims.    BURDESS AND HIS WIFE APPEAL.    CONTINUED  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Nov 17,  .. 8th Cir:    Hiscox v. Taylor  ..  Taylor obtained the insurance policy with the help of an independent insurance agent. Taylor and her agent completed what Hiscox calls "an industry standard ACORD application form, which is used by retail agents to seek quotes from various insurers and wholesale brokers."    The form contained a question that asked, in all capital letters, if the "applicant had a foreclosure, repossession, bankruptcy or filed for bankruptcy during the past five (5) years."    TAYLOR ANSWERED NO.    After receiving Taylor's application, another entity with authority to issue the policy did so on Hiscox's behalf.    Only six days before Taylor submitted her application, however, her mortgagee had filed a "Notice of Default and Intention to Sell," which set a specific date and time when it planned to sell Taylor's home.    A lawyer representing Taylor had corresponded with the mortgagee before Taylor submitted her insurance application.    Taylor did not disclose these events to Hiscox.       After Suzan Taylor's Arkansas home burned to the ground, her insurer, Hiscox Dedicated Corporate Member Limited (a "capital provider" to an underwriting syndicate doing business within the Lloyd's of London insurance marketplace), declined to pay her for her loss and instead rescinded the insurance policy because she had made material misrepresentations in her insurance application.    Hiscox then sued Taylor in federal court, seeking a declaratory judgment that it had properly rescinded the policy and had no obligation to Taylor.    The district court agreed with Hiscox and granted it summary judgment on the ground that Taylor had misrepresented that she had not had a foreclosure during the past five years, and, had Taylor disclosed that foreclosure proceedings had been commenced against her home, Hiscox would not have issued the policy.    Taylor appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Nov 16,  .. Fed Cir.:    Durr v. MSPB  ..  Mr. Durr was honorably discharged from the U.S. Army in January 1993 and hired by USPS in March 1994.    On January 16, 1996, USPS recorded Mr. Durr as being absent without official leave (AWOL). Mr. Durr continued to fail to report to work, and on April 24, 1996, USPS notified him of a proposal for his removal.    The notice gave Mr. Durr fourteen days to respond, but he did not respond.    On May 16, 1996, USPS sent Mr. Durr a letter noting his non-response to the removal proposal and informing him that he would be removed from service, effective June 1, 1996.    The letter also notified Mr. Durr of his right to appeal “[the] decision . . . within 30 days from the effective date of [the] decision.” Mr. Durr did not timely challenge his removal.    On May 14, 2015, nearly 20 years after his removal, Mr. Durr filed an appeal to the Board challenging his 1996 AWOL charge and his subsequent removal.    An administrative judge dismissed that appeal, the Board affirmed, and we dismissed Mr. Durr’s appeal of the Board’s affirmance for failure to prosecute.    Mr. Durr subsequently filed another appeal to the Board on April 10, 2017 requesting remedial action under USERRA. The administrative judge dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, which the Board made final.    Mr. Durr subsequently appealed to this court, and we reversed the dismissal on the basis that Mr. Durr “raised allegations sufficient to establish the MSPB’s jurisdiction over his appeal under USERRA” and remanded the case back to the Board.    On remand, USPS moved for dismissal based on the doctrine of laches. USPS contended Mr. Durr waited over twenty years to bring his USERRA claim and that he did not provide any explanation for the delay. ... CONTINUED  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Nov 16,  .. FLRA:    HUD v. AFGE  ..  The Agency issued the reprimand, charging the grievant with failure to follow instructions and inattention to duty. The Union filed a grievance challenging the reprimand.    The Agency later proposed to suspend the grievant for seven days, alleging that the grievant again failed to follow instructions. On review, the Agency’s deciding official determined that only one of three charges underlying the proposed suspension warranted discipline.    Accordingly, she reduced the suspension to five days. The Union grieved the suspension.    The grievances were consolidated and went to arbitration.    Arbitrator Mark D. Keyl found that the Agency properly issued an official reprimand (the reprimand) to an employee (the grievant) for certain conduct, but improperly suspended the grievant for five days for other conduct.    Thus, the Arbitrator sustained the grievance in part, denied it in part, and directed various remedies discussed further below.    The Agency filed exceptions arguing that the Arbitrator exceeded his authority and that the award fails to draw its essence from the parties’ agreement. ... CONTINUED  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Nov 16,  .. 8th Cir:    Burton v. Univ of Wisconsin  ..  Burton traces the origin of the dispute to 2012, when she reported to Elizabeth Throop, then- dean of the university’s College of Liberal Arts and Education, that a colleague had sexually harassed a student. Burton’s colleague was reprimanded and his contract was not renewed, but he was allowed to stay in his position through the end of the following school year.    Burton regarded the university’s response as inadequate. She embarked on a campaign to draw attention to the “sexism and corruption” among the university’s leadership. Her relationship with many colleagues and administrators soured.    In 2014 she sued the university for discrimination and retaliation.    The district court concluded that Burton adduced no evidence to support her claims and entered summary judgment for the defendants. We affirmed.    Meanwhile, Burton continued to express dissatisfaction with the university’s handling of her grievances.    She secretly recorded faculty meetings and posted the recordings or transcripts of them to a website created by her husband to publicize her efforts. She wrote a letter to the governor complaining that the university’s “very corrupt, liberal administration” was “mercilessly harassing employees and students.” She wrote to the Wisconsin attorney general asking for an investigation to be opened.    And she filed grievances against three professors, one of whom she says made a “death threat” by pretending his finger was a gun and mimicking shooting at her, purportedly in retaliation for her activism.    In late 2016, Throop (by this time, serving as interim provost) and Dean Melissa Gormley drafted a complaint under chapter 4 of Wisconsin’s administrative code to begin formal dismissal proceedings against Burton.    A chapter 4 complaint is the vehicle for firing tenured faculty members in the University of Wisconsin system.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Nov 15,  .. CCA:    Olguin v. City of Hollister  ..  Plaintiff was employed with the City of Hollister Fire Department for over 25 years before he was discharged for misconduct. He was hired as a firefighter, promoted to firefighter/engineer, and served as a fire captain for approximately five years before he was terminated. Following an internal affairs investigation, the city notified plaintiff on October 11, 2019, of its intent to terminate his employment. The written notice described the misconduct giving rise to the adverse action, which involved an altercation between plaintiff and his brother (also a city firefighter) at a birthday party the previous October.    kelly conference was held on November 21, 2019,1 and was attended by plaintiff, his attorney, a city fire captain, and the city’s management services director who served as the decisionmaker. Plaintiff opposed the proposed termination orally and in writing, and provided numerous documents to the director, including letters of support from colleagues. The director considered the statements, documents, and plaintiff’s remorse before issuing a final notice of termination on January 8, 2020.    According to a declaration submitted by plaintiff’s attorney in the trial court, plaintiff presented evidence at the Skelly conference that he was not the initial aggressor at the October 2018 party; that his brother had been physically violent to him in the past; and that despite claimed injuries attributed to the October 2018 incident, his brother was physically active and earned money working side jobs while on paid medical leave.    Plaintiff appealed the termination decision, and a de novo evidentiary hearing was held before the city manager.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Nov 15,  .. 3rd Cir.:    Baum v. SSA  ..  Baum’s claims pertain to his non-selection for two promotions. Baum applied for and was denied a promotion to district manager in his office in Butler, PA. He also applied for and was denied a promotion to assistant district manager in Ambridge,    In addition, Baum argued that his subsequent demotion from operations supervisor to claims representative was discriminatory and retaliatory.    Baum additionally argued that a 2017 performance review by Amber Mundis was an adverse employment action. Although the SSA argued that any claim based on the performance review was waived, we do not conclude that waiver or forfeiture took place.    Nonetheless, we hold that the 2017 review was not an adverse employment action as it was not “serious and tangible enough to alter [Baum’s] compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.”    In fact, Baum’s score of a 4.0 out of 5.0 was by no means a bad score, as it meant that he was eligible for a bonus. It also did not result in loss of pay or a demotion.    See Weston v. Pennsylvania, 251 F.3d 420, 431 (3d Cir. 2001) (holding written reprimands were not adverse employment actions because they had not caused a “material change in the terms or conditions of his employment”).    The Butler position became available when Baum’s former supervisor, George Ziecina, retired. Baum served as Ziecina’s right-hand man. Baum, and at least eight other employees, applied to replace Ziecina. Ziecina’s immediate supervisor, Amber Mundis, recommended against Baum’s selection.    She noted that Baum had difficulties providing honest and timely feedback, collaborating with coworkers, engaging employees, demonstrating leadership, and communicating appropriately and sufficiently. The position ultimately went to a different candidate who outranked Baum in the SSA, had previously served as a district manager, and had received praise for his communication skills.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Nov 15,  .. D.D.C.:    Stanton v. Whitley  ..  From November to December 2014, Stanton worked as a Marine Endangered Species Observer aboard the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers vessel Dredge Wheeler.    The Corps used the Wheeler as part of a dredging operation in Freeport and Corpus Christi, Texas and contracted with Stanton’s employer, East Coast Observers, Inc., to provide two observers aboard the vessel. The observers’ role was to report any sea turtle activity to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in compliance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973.    Stanton and her supervisor, Leslie Osborne, were to “monitor all flow screens 24 hours per day, do necessary NMFS daily, incident and summary reporting, clean screens, and process live, injured, and/or deceased endangered animals in accordance with NMFS approved procedures.”    Stanton alleges that on December 9 and 16, 2014, Mark Griffin, a 3rd Mate on the Wheeler, sexually and physically assaulted her.    Stanton reported the incidents to Randy Valles, Assistant Master of the Wheeler, on December 17, 2014.    Valles responded to Stanton that he would inform Captain Morehouse and that action would be taken. Valles also advised other crewmembers to refrain from contacting Stanton outside of work obligations.    Stanton also alleges that on December 21, 2014, another crewmember on the vessel, Ivan Danilichav, physically assaulted her after they got into a disagreement.    Griffin and Danilichav both deny that they physically or sexually assaulted Stanton.    On April 15, 2015, Stanton filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), which rendered a final decision on August 23, 2018.    Stanton claimed that two Wheeler crewmembers assaulted her while she was aboard the Wheeler and that the Corps retaliated against her after she reported the allegations.    The EEOC determined that Stanton failed to initiate timely contact with an EEO counselor.    The EEOC found, however, that the Corps qualified as her employer and retaliated against her for having engaged in the protected activity of having reported harassment.    On September 24, 2018, Stanton appealed the Final Agency Decision on the denial of her sexual harassment claim.    Her appeal was dismissed on August 19, 2020.    She then filed a request for reconsideration on August 27, 2020, which the EEOC denied on February 25, 2021.    Stanton filed this Complaint on May 17, 2021.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Nov 14,  .. 10th Cir.:    Fresquez v. BNSF Railway  ..  BNSF is a Texas-based freight transportation company that operates an extensive interstate railroad network. BNSF is designated as a Class I freight railroad by the federal government.    Mr. Fresquez, a Colorado resident, began working for BNSF’s Maintenance of Way Department in November 2005.    Plaintiff Brandon Fresquez filed this action against his former employer, defendant BNSF Railway Company (BNSF), claiming that BNSF violated the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) by terminating his employment in retaliation for him engaging in certain activities that are expressly protected under the FRSA.    The case proceeded to a jury trial. The jury found in favor of Fresquez on his claim of retaliation under the FRSA, and it awarded him $800,000 in compensatory damages and $250,000 in punitive damages.    Following the trial, Fresquez moved for an award of back and front pay. The district court granted that motion in part and awarded Fresquez a total of $696,173 in back and front pay, bringing the total judgment to $1,746,173, plus interest from the date of entry of judgment.    BNSF now appeals. BNSF argues that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the merits of Fresquez’s claims, and, alternatively, judgment as a matter of law on the issue of punitive damages.    BNSF further argues that it is entitled to a new trial on the merits of Fresquez’s claims based on the district court’s admission of character and other prejudicial evidence.    BNSF also argues that it is entitled to a new trial on the issue of compensatory damages.    Lastly, BNSF argues that the district court abused its discretion by awarding Fresquez ten years’ worth of front pay. ... CONTINUED  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Nov 14,  .. 8th Cir.:    Thompson v. University of Arkansas  ..  Mr. Thompson is African-American. He began working for the University of Arkansas at Fort Smith Police Department (“UAFS PD”) in 2012.    Mr. Ottman is Caucasian. He was hired as UAFS PD Chief in 2015. Thompson alleges that Ottman discriminated against him and mistreated him.    On one occasion, Ottman remarked that Thompson resembled George Jefferson, an African-American character from the 1970s and 1980s television shows All in the Family and The Jeffersons.    Other incidents included Ottman insinuating that Thompson should resign and try to get a job with the local police department (as opposed to the campus police department), Ottman refusing to give Thompson holidays off, and Ottman repeatedly placing Thompson on night shifts despite his requests for greater flexibility.    Thompson verbally raised these issues in an August 28, 2017 meeting with Ottman’s supervisor, Brad Sheriff. Sheriff notified Ottman that Thompson had complained of scheduling issues and unfair treatment during a regularly scheduled meeting that day.    Sheriff did not characterize Thompson’s complaints as related to discrimination or specifically raise Thompson’s complaint about the George Jefferson remark.    On August 24, a few days before Thompson’s meeting with Sheriff, Thompson responded to a call from a resident assistant reporting an intoxicated man in a dormitory room who was passed out and foaming at the mouth.    Two female students were also in the room.    Thompson proceeded to question the students outside the room for about twenty minutes.    Thompson never attempted to check the man’s vital signs, position his body in a manner that minimized choking risk, or administer other first aid. At one point, the resident assistant asked if Thompson was going to attend to the man. Thompson simply responded that paramedics were on the way. The paramedics eventually arrived and transported the man to a local hospital.    On September 1, 2017, Thompson was dismissed for cause. The dismissal letter focused on the August 24 incident, noting that Thompson “failed to approach or attend to the victim,” “check for a medical alert ID,” “check vital signs,” and “provide first aid.”    Thompson believes he was terminated wrongfully. Thompson sued the Board of Trustees and Ottman in September 2020. He asserted claims of race discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and age discrimination against both defendants.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Nov 14,  .. 10th Cir.:    Hennessey v. University of Kansas Hospital  ..  Tamatha Hennessey alleges a radiology technician sexually assaulted her during her visit to the University of Kansas hospital for emergency medical care. Proceeding pro se, Ms. Hennessey brought a civil action for negligent supervision against the University of Kansas Hospital Authority (“UKHA”), which oversees operation of the hospital.    UKHA moved to dismiss the action, arguing Ms. Hennessey failed to plead facts supporting subject matter/diversity jurisdiction and that it is entitled to sovereign immunity.    UKHA premised both arguments on it being an arm of the state of Kansas and therefore entitled to the same immunities as the state.    But UKHA failed to support its motion with any evidence demonstrating it is an arm of the state or any analysis of the factors governing whether a state-created entity is an arm of the state.    The district court concluded UKHA is an arm of the state and, therefore, dismissed Ms. Hennessey’s action.    Ms. Hennessey appeals. ... CONTINUED  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Nov 14,  .. MCA:    Branch v. Genesee County  ..  This matter stems from allegations by Branch, who is African-American, that he experienced race discrimination when he applied for a manager-director position with the GCRC. The GCRC ultimately appointed Fred Peivandi, an Iranian-American male, as manager director.    Branch began working for the GCRC in 1988 and was promoted to the director of maintenance in 2004. In this role, Branch reported to John Daly, GCRC’s manager director. In early 2018, Daly resigned as manager director and recommended that Branch replace him. Branch and Peivandi, then GCRC’s director of engineering, were appointed as co-interim manager directors and given raises while the Genesee County Board of Road Commissioners (the Board) began the search process to permanently fill the role.    At all relevant times, the Board consisted of   (1) Cloyce Dickerson, who is African-American;   (2) Shirley Kautman-Jones, who is Caucasian;   (3) John Mandelaris, who is Caucasian;   (4) David Arceo, who is Mexican-American; and   (5) Robert Johnson, who is Caucasian.    The Board hired MSAE to assist GCRC in its search for a new manager director. In April 2018, Cheryl Ronk, MSAE’s president at the time, met with the Board to discuss the manager- director position. When Ronk asked the Board members if they wanted certain candidates to automatically receive an interview with the Board, she was told that the Board “wanted all candidates to go through the same process.”    After discussion of the job description for the manager-director posting, a proposed description was prepared and stated, in relevant part:    EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE       Possession of a Bachelor’s Degree in a field related to job functions is required. Preference is given towards Civil Engineering and similar disciplines.    A Master’s Degree will be considered an asset. [Emphasis added.] ... CONTINUED  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Nov 14,  .. D.C.:    Price v. Bd. of Ethics  ..  Appellant Gerren Price appeals the trial court’s order affirming the Board of Ethics and Government Accountability’s (“BEGA”) determination that Mr. Price violated the District’s Code of Conduct 2 (“Code of Conduct”). BEGA determined that as a supervisory public official for the District of Columbia Mr. Price improperly “advanced” the resume of his sister-in- law for a position within his agency and failed to submit a written notice of recusal.    Mr. Price argues in this appeal that 1) BEGA’s decision lacked evidentiary support; 2) BEGA incorrectly interpreted the term “advance” in its regulations; and 3) his actions did not amount to a “hiring decision.”       We agree and reverse the trial court’s order   and conclude that Mr. Price’s conduct did not fall within a reasonable definition of “advance” and “hiring decision” under the regulation because his actions were ministerial and non-preferential and no one involved in the actual hiring decision was aware of Mr. Price’s relationship to the applicant.    We further vacate the associated fine totaling $1,500 and restitution in the amount of $26,182.10 assessed by BEGA. ... CONTINUED     ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Nov 10,  .. FLRA:  AFGE v. VA  ..  Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Agency informed the Union that it would be reducing the number of shifts that bargaining-unit employees work per week and increasing the hours for those shifts.    The Union grieved the change, and Arbitrator Dennis R. Nolan issued an award finding that § 7106 of the Federal Service Labor‑Management Relations Statute (the Statute) authorized the Agency to change the employees’ schedules during an emergency.    Accordingly, the Arbitrator denied the grievance.    The Union filed exceptions arguing that the award is based on a nonfact and fails to draw its essence from a local supplemental agreement (local agreement) and the parties’ master agreement (master agreement).    FLRA:    Because the Union’s nonfact exception merely challenges the Arbitrator’s evaluation of the evidence, we deny it.    Further, because the Union’s essence exceptions do not establish that the Arbitrator’s interpretation of either agreement is deficient, we deny those exceptions.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Nov 10,  .. D.D.C. :    Brisbon v. Poteat  ..  The plaintiff, Denetra T. Brisbon, is “an African-American female, born on April 25, 1959, who at the time that she filed her Complaint in this case “held the position of Supervisory Community Supervision Officer, GS-13, Branch V Team 25 with CSOSA.    The plaintiff “has been employed at CSOSA since 1998 and “has held the position of Supervisory Community Supervision Officer . . . since March 2008.    During the time relevant to the facts alleged in this case, the plaintiff’s first line supervisor was Elizabeth Powell, Branch Chief, and her second line supervisor was then-Acting Associate Director Yolanda Bethea.    The plaintiff has filed three separate Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) actions against her employer. On January 1, 2007, the plaintiff filed an EEO complaint alleging that “her former supervisor made a racist comment.    As to this complaint, “a default judgment in [the p]laintiff’s favor was issued by an [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (‘]EEOC[’)] Administrative Judge on September 26, 2011.”    On May 14, 2013, the plaintiff filed a second EEO complaint alleging reprisal for a lowered performance evaluation, which was withdrawn in 2016[,]”    Finally, the plaintiff filed a third EEO complaint on October 21, 2016, after her non-selection, which forms the basis for the plaintiff’s discrimination claims in this case.    ... CONTINUED  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Nov 10,  .. COURT6th Cir.:    Davis v. Univ. of Louisville  ..  The University of Louisville Physicians (“ULP”) fired Frank Davis because it believed he was a threat to his patients.    Davis sued, believing ULP fired him because of his age.    About ten months after ULP hired then-59-year-old Frank Davis as a surgical assistant, Davis’s supervisor, Lisa Motley, met with him. She told him his performance was lacking, and she put him on a Performance Improvement Plan.    The Plan identified problems with Davis’s performance, including his inability to “harvest viable vein efficiently,” his failure to proactively contribute to procedures, and insubordination. It also warned that failure to improve could result in termination.    According to Davis, during the meeting, Motley remarked on Davis’s gray hair and observed that as people “get older, things become more difficult to do.”    So following that meeting, Davis filed three complaints of discrimination and retaliation: two internally and one with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).    In response to the first internal complaint, Dr. Mark Slaughter, the chair of the department, replaced Lisa Motley as Davis’s supervisor.    But Davis kept making mistakes. On one occasion, Davis accidentally cut through a patient’s endotracheal tube when removing surgical drapes, causing a problem with the patient’s breathing. On another, Davis incorrectly handled a vein in the operating room, and it fell to the floor. Citing those two incidents, Dr. Slaughter ended Davis’s employment.    Davis sues for discrimination and retaliation under both state and federal law.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Nov 10,  .. Fed Cir.:    McIntosh v. Defense  ..  Elfina McIntosh was employed by the Department of Defense Education Authority as a Program and Budget Analyst.    In her role as a Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), Ms. McIntosh was responsible for approving travel expenses for two government contracts.    Generally, contractor employees would submit a travel request to the Program Manager, Heather McIntosh-Braden (no relation to Ms. McIntosh), who would then forward them to Ms. McIntosh for review.    Ms. McIntosh would ensure the requests complied with Federal Travel Regulations and approve or reject them.    Ms. McIntosh received a promotion around October 2016.    Following her promotion, Ms. McIntosh’s superiors noted that her “demeanor degraded” and her “work ethic deteriorated.”    The agency raised two repeated problems with Ms. McIntosh’s job performance: refusal to approve invoices and refusal to provide contract information to her coworkers as directed.    ... CONTINUED  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

JOE BIDEN'S WAR IN UKRAINE    The US military generals and CIA provided plans to the White House to provoke Russia into invading Ukraine in order to (1) steal Russia's oil and gas trade with Germany and europe, (2) to force European countries into buying more multi-billion dollar US Weapon Systems (3) force Germany and France into approving Ukraine's membership into NATO, (5) allow congress (republicans and democrats) to vote to give billions and billions and billions to Ukraine, (6) allow congress (republicans and democrats) to vote to give billions and billions and billions to US Weapons makers.    ( US weapon makers generally kick-back 10 percent to house and senate election campaign war chests.)       BOTH Barack Obama and Donald Trump disapproved the military plan to provoke Russia into invading Ukraine. Both Obama and Trump said the military plans would result in thousands of deaths of both Ukraine and Russian people --AND-- result in hundreds of billion dollars in wasteful military spending.     Unlike Barack Obama, Joe Biden approved the military war plan to force Russia into invading Ukraine by pumping more and more sophisticated weapons into Ukraine, which sits on Russia's border.     Russian President Putin went on TV several times to demand and warn the US that if it continued to send sophisticated weapon systems into Ukraine, it would have no choice but to invade Ukraine.    Putin reasoned that ---Just as the US would never allow any hostile government to deploy weapons on its borders, ---Russia would not tolerate Sophisticated US weapons on its borders.     Biden responded to Putin's plea, demand, warning by announcing plans to send even more sophisticated US weapons into Ukraine, which sits on Russia's border.     After successfully provoking Russia into invading Ukraine, Biden went on TV to Label it "Russia's War On Ukraine" rather than the truth     "BIDEN'S WAR IN UKRAINE"

JOE BIDEN'S KARMA :    Biden's War In Ukraine has resulted in sky-high inflation;    sky-high oil and gas prices;    a world-wide food shortage   a loss of the US house of representatives; and   a loss of the US senate.     ( THEY SAY GOD DON'T LIKE UGLY )    ( KARMA IS A MO FO )

♦       Nov 3,  .. 3rd Cir.:    U.S. v. Weiss  ..     A REAL-LIFE IRS NIGHTMARE !    For the six-year period from 1986 through 1991, Charles Weiss did not pay federal income taxes. In October 1994, Weiss late-filed his tax returns for those years, self-reporting a liability of $299,202.      Later that month, the Internal Revenue Service made tax assessments against him for each of those years.      By assessing those taxes, the IRS triggered a ten-year limitations period for collecting the unpaid taxes through a court proceeding or a levy, which is a legal seizure of property or a right to property.      Weiss’s subsequent bankruptcies tolled that limitations period three times between 1994 and 2009, yielding a new expiration date for the statute of limitations: July 21, 2009.      In anticipation of that deadline, the IRS began the process of collecting the unpaid taxes through a levy. It mailed a Final Notice – Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a Hearing letter to Weiss on or about February 13, 2009.      Through a complaint filed on February 5, 2019, the government sought to collect from Weiss his delinquent taxes plus accrued interest, which together totaled $773,899.84.      REMEMBER ... he acutually owed $299,000 in taxes and penalties.      The IRS put an extra $473,00 hurting on him ... for trying to Do The Right Thing.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Nov 2,  .. D.D.C.:    Reed-Morton v. Fudge (HUD)  ..  Ms. Reed-Morton is an African-American woman who works at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).    She first filed an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint against her supervisor in 2015 for sexual harassment.    Ms. Reed-Morton then filed a second EEO complaint against different supervisors in 2017 for harassment and retaliation based on her prior EEO activity.    After she filed the 2017 EEO complaint, Ms. Reed-Morton alleges that her supervisors “subjected [her] to tangible employment actions” including “negative performance ratings, reprimand and other disciplinary actions, and disparate treatment as to assignments, duties, training, and access to information.”    Reed-Morton alleges they did so because she filed an EEO complaint. She also claims that her supervisors issued her a written counseling letter and a letter of reprimand.    And she argues that the Department gave her notice of a proposed 14-day suspension without pay, and then suspended her for five days without pay.    More, she alleges that the Department “failed to take any corrective action” against her supervisors, creating a hostile work environment “in retaliation for [her] prior protected EEO activity.”    Finally, Reed-Morton notes that her supervisors notified her that they were removing her and then did so.    Several months after the Department removed her, Reed-Morton prevailed on her 2015 EEO complaint that her supervisor had sexually harassed her.    Soon after, an arbitrator found that the Department had wrongfully terminated Reed-Morton in 2018.    The arbitrator ordered the Department to reinstate Reed-Morton with backpay and restore her benefits.    Then, an EEOC administrative judge found that Reed-Morton had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that eight of the 46 acts she raised in her 2017 EEO complaint were retaliatory and created a retaliatory hostile work environment.    Now, Reed-Morton seeks de novo review of 35 acts that the administrative judge found were not retaliatory.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Nov 1,  .. 3rd Cir.:    Mergucz v. Cellco Partnership  ..  Ms. Mergucz worked for Verizon. She was a poor employee: She missed deadlines, fell short of quotas, and dissatisfied customers.    She came off as unprofessional and combative over the phone and in meetings, sparking complaints by her peers. Plus, she often worked unapproved overtime and left work early. In 2015, she was ranked 176th out of 180 customer-service representatives. Her productivity was much too low and her error rate way too high.    So she was often put on plans to improve her performance.    In May 2016, Holmes-Mergucz was seriously injured in a car accident. Verizon gave her medical leave from work and then, starting in December, a work-from-home accom- modation. But she kept making errors, missing deadlines, and disrespecting both clients and colleagues. In mid-2017, Verizon again put her on an action plan to improve.    In late 2017, Verizon sought to cut costs by firing its lowest-scoring employees. As part of this downsizing, it fired Holmes-Mergucz.    Her division was one of two selected by her boss for layoffs. Of the three employees in her division, she and one other were cut.    She now sues, claiming disability discrimination and retaliation.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Nov 1,  .. CCA:    Davis v. Shiekh Shoes  ..  Nineteen months after plaintiff Ms. Davis filed suit against her former employer Shiekh Shoes, LLC (Shiekh), Shiekh moved to compel arbitration of Ms. Davis’s claims.    The trial court denied the motion, finding Shiekh waived its right to invoke arbitration by unreasonably delaying its arbitration demand and acting inconsistently with an intent to arbitrate.    BACKGROUND    In August 2018, Shiekh hired Davis as a sales associate. As part of her “new hire” paperwork, Davis and Shiekh signed an agreement “to resolve any and all disputes or claims each may have against the other which relate in any manner whatsoever as to Employee’s employment . . . by binding arbitration” and to “waive their right to commence, be a party to, or class member of, any court action.” Davis’s employment at Shiekh would prove to be short, however, as she resigned from the position a mere three months after being hired.    According to Davis, she was subjected to ongoing, sexually explicit, and demeaning comments, unwanted touching, and indecent exposure from her co-worker, Danilo Ensuncho, as well as other harassing conduct from Shiekh customers.    On March 25, 2019, Davis filed a complaint against Shiekh and Ensuncho. The first cause of action asserted violations ... based on (1) sex discrimination; (2) sexual harassment; (3) retaliation; and (4) failure to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment.    The first FEHA violation was alleged against both Ensuncho and Shiekh, while the other three FEHA violations were alleged solely against Shiekh.    Davis also asserted three separate causes of action against Shiekh for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention; wrongful constructive discharge in violation of public policy; and intentional infliction of emotional distress.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Nov 1,  .. CCA:    Wyatt v. Kern High School  ..  At issue in this matter is whether certain records maintained by appellant Kern High School District (KHSD) and pertaining to respondent Jerald Wyatt, a police officer formerly employed by KHSD, are subject to disclosure in response to requests made in 2019, pursuant to the California Public Records Act (CPRA).    KHSD maintains a police department. In early 2019, KHSD received several CPRA record requests from various news agencies and others seeking information concerning KHSD officer involved events including records pertaining to   (1) the discharge of a firearm at a person by an officer;   (2) the use of force by an officer resulting in death or great bodily injury;   (3) sustained findings an officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public; and   (4) sustained findings of dishonesty-related misconduct by an officer.    Upon receipt of the CPRA requests, KHSD notified Wyatt that it had identified “documents from [Wyatt’s] personnel file responsive to these requests” (subject records).    Prior to January 1, 2019, access to such records was only permitted through a Pitchess motion brought pursuant to Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1045.    With the passage of Senate Bill No. 1421 ... Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8 were amended to allow disclosure of such records pursuant to a CPRA request under specified circumstances.    Wyatt petitioned the Kern County Superior Court for a writ of mandate, temporary restraining order, and preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin KHSD from disclosing the subject records in response to the CPRA requests.    Wyatt argued, among other things, the ... CONTINUED  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Oct 31,  .. FLRA:  DOD DLA v.  AFGE  ..  The Union filed a grievance alleging that the Agency was required to bargain over then‑President Trump’s executive orders (EOs) 13,836, 13,837, and 13,839 before the Agency could implement those EOs.    Arbitrator Perry A. Zirkel issued an award finding that the Agency had to meet certain bargaining obligations before implementing two of the EOs.    The Agency filed exceptions to the award. While the exceptions were pending before the Authority, President Biden issued EO 14,003, which revoked the three above‑referenced EOs.    For the reasons discussed below, we find that the parties’ underlying dispute is now moot, and we vacate the award.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Oct 31,  .. 11th Cir.:    Christmas v. Harris County  ..     I WOULD "DO ANYTHING" TO AVOID GETTING A TICKET !    On February 14, 2016, Ms. Christmas was driving towards Columbus, Georgia, to meet a friend for lunch when Deputy Sheriff Pierson pulled her over.    [ Deputy Pierson informed Ms. Christmas that he planned to issue her a ticket for speeding.]    [Pierson said Ms. Christmas said she would "Do Anything" to avoid getting the ticket for speeding.]    The two spoke for a bit until Pierson concluded the stop by issuing Christmas a written warning.    Before letting her go, though, Pierson suggested that Christmas meet him at a nearby side road, where the pair could continue their conversation “unfiltered.”    Christmas got back into her car and initially intended to drive away.  But, when Pierson got behind her in his cruiser and activated his lights, she felt compelled to pull into the side road next to him.    Once there, Pierson forced Christmas to perform oral sex on him.    Later that same day, a shocked and distraught Christmas stopped by the Pike County Sheriff’s Office to report the assault.    That office relayed the information to the Harris County Sheriff’s Office, whose elected Sheriff was our Appellee, Robert Jolley.    Sheriff Jolley immediately investigated the allegations and brought Pierson in for questioning.    When Pierson confessed the next day (On Pierson’s telling, this encounter was consensual.)  Sheriff Jolley—who’d once fired a deputy for dating someone the deputy had met on duty—terminated Pierson.       Sheriff Jolley also engaged the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (“GBI”) to help launch a broader inquiry into Pierson’s conduct. As part of that inquiry, Sheriff Jolley sent letters to every person Pierson had pulled over (and issued written warnings to) during the six months before his encounter with Christmas. Two women responded.    The first, whom the parties identify as C.T., claimed that Pierson made sexually inappropriate comments to her during a traffic stop on September 12, 2015, and that he later followed her (against her will) to her grandmother’s house.    The second, L.F., reported that—during a traffic stop on October 19, 2015—Pierson showed her a video of himself having sex with a woman and added that Pierson unexpectedly showed up to her home the next day.    A third woman, M.A., separately contacted the GBI and claimed that Pierson offered to let her go from a traffic stop on September 4, 2015, without a citation if she agreed to perform oral sex on him, WHICH SHE DID.       ... CONTINUED  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Oct 31,  .. D.D.C.:    Hartzler v. Wolf  ..  Plaintiff Tammy Hartzler (“Plaintiff”) worked at FEMA from 2014 to 2019, first an intern and then as a Program Analyst in FEMA’s Capital Region Office.    Plaintiff alleges that, beginning in 2015 and stretching into 2019, she faced a stream of discrimination, retaliation, and other harassing and demeaning conduct from her supervisors at FEMA, and particularly from her first-line supervisor Joe Burchette.    Plaintiff, who the parties agree is disabled due to, among other health issues, impairments in her spine and thyroid cancer, says Burchette derided her physical condition, failed to accommodate her disabilities, excluded her from certain work and sent her on assignments he knew were beyond her limited capabilities, denied her bonuses and raises, and ultimately placed her on a performance improvement plan (“PIP”)—which led to the revocation of her telework privileges—and then had her fired after she allegedly failed the PIP.    More, Plaintiff claims that many of these actions were taken in retaliation against her complaints to FEMA’s Equal Employment Opportunity Office (“EEO”) that Burchette’s actions were discriminatory.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Oct 31,  .. 2d Cir.:    Truitt v. Salisbury Bank  ..  In this case, plaintiff-appellant William Gunnar Truitt, an employee of defendant-appellee Salisbury Bank and Trust Company (the "Bank"), announced his candidacy for a New York State Assembly seat.    The Bank thereafter advised Truitt that he had to choose between running for office and continuing his employment with the Bank. Truitt decided not to discontinue his campaign, and his employment with the Bank ended.    Truitt brought this action below, contending that the Bank violated New York Labor Law § 201-d by requiring him to cease protected political activity as a condition of retaining his employment at the Bank.    The statute makes it unlawful for an employer to discharge or discriminate against an employee for engaging in, inter alia, specified political activities outside of working hours.    Protected activities expressly include "running for public office."    The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Bank, concluding, as a matter of law, that because Truitt voluntarily resigned from his position and was not constructively discharged, his suit could not succeed.    The court thereafter denied Truitt's motion for reconsideration, and this appeal followed.    FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED BELOW, WE VACATE THE JUDGMENT AND REMAND.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Oct 28,  .. D.D.C.:    Turpin v. District of Columbia  ..  In May 2022, Charles Turpin and Regina Jackson sued the District of Columbia and Officer Michael Chen of the Metropolitan Police Department in the Superior Court of the District of Co- lumbia. The suit stems from a purported incident in September 2020 during which Plaintiffs allege Officer Chen illegally searched Turpin’s apartment, seized property, and arrested them. After being served, the District of Columbia removed the case to this Court. Now, it moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ trespass claim for failure to state a claim, arguing that Plaintiffs did not comply with a notice requirement under District of Columbia law before suing. For the following reasons, the Court will deny the motion. ... CONTINUED.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Oct 28,  .. NYCA:    Long Beach v. New York State Public Employment , Relations Board  ..  Jay Gusler is a professional firefighter for the City of Long Beach (City) and a member of the Long Beach Professional Firefighters Association (Union). He sustained injuries in the line of duty in November 2014, which were later determined to be compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Law. In November 2015, the City’s Fire Commissioner sent Gusler a letter notifying him that the City was evaluating whether to exercise its right to terminate Gusler’s employment, inasmuch as Civil Service Law § 71 would no longer prohibit the City from terminating him after his absence from work for more than a year due to his injury. The letter explained that if Gusler “dispute[d] this potential termination” the City would hold a meeting at a specified time and date at which he would have the opportunity to be heard, but if he failed to attend the meeting then the Fire Commissioner would determine that Gusler was not contesting his termination and would recommend his discharge. The Union responded by sending the City a demand to negotiate the procedures for terminating its members covered by section 71’s protections. After the City refused, the Union filed an improper practice charge with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). We are presented with the following question: Does the Taylor Law (Civil Service Law § 200 et seq.) require a municipality to engage in collective bargaining over the procedures for terminating municipal employees after they have been absent from work for more than a year due to an injury sustained in the line of duty? We hold that collective bargaining is required.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Oct 28,  .. ACI:    Urban v. J.P. Morgan  ..  Urban worked for Chase as a licensed personal banker for nearly two years beginning in Janua1y 2008. After he was fired in 2009, Urban, who is White, filed a race discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Oppo1tunity Commission (EEOC), contending that he had been terminated for violating a policy about online banking procedures which was violated with impunity by his Hispanic colleague(s). Chase responded to the EEOC that within Urban's first year of employment, he was given a "Written Warning" for not following proper account opening policies and procedures. He also received a "Needs Improvement" rating in his 2008 job performance evaluation because he did not follow Chase's training to promote retail banking products and services. After he was transfe1Ted from Chase 's Bucktown branch office to its North Pulaski location, he received a second "Written Warning" in early 2009. A few months later, when a different branch manager was transferred to head the North Pulaski location, that manager tried to improve Urban's job performance by putting him on a written "Action Plan" in early May 2009 with daily goals for the remainder of the month. However, in July 2009, Urban was put on another "Action Plan," this one lasting for 30 days. Also, within that same month, he received a third "Written Warning" for "continued performance issues" and for a zero rating by a myste1y shopper/undercover investigator who documented that Urban was still not following Chase's retail marketing methods or the branch manager's coaching. In September 2009, when Urban received his third consecutive zero rating by a myste1y shopper, he was called to a job performance meeting with his branch manager, district manager, and market manager. In the same month of September, the branch manager overheard Urban assisting a customer whom he had previously helped enroll in online bill pay access, and the manager realized that during the encounter in August, Urban had violated a Chase policy by inputting "none@none.com" as the customer's e-mail account. During the customer's follow-up visit to the North Pulaski branch in September, the manager overheard Urban violate other Chase policies by using a Chase computer to create a Yahoo e-mail account for the customer. The use of a bank computer was prohibited and the creation of an e-mail account was an additional prohibition. Urban admitted this conduct in a sworn written statement and that he had done this not only to assist the customer, but also to earn incentive pay for himself by selling a bank product or service. A few days later, Chase fired Urban. Chase concluded its response to the EEOC by discussing how Urban's conduct was different from that of a Hispanic coworker whom he contended had engaged in similar policy violations but had not been fired.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Oct 28,  .. 7th Cir.:    Dunlevy v. James Langfelder  ..  Andrew Dunlevy, a white man who worked as a utility water meter reader for the City of Springfield, sued Mayor James Langfelder and the City for racial discrimination after he was fired for inaccurately reporting homeowners’ water meters. In support of his claims, Dunlevy compared himself to a black coworker, Tour Murray, who was not fired even though he started work late, left early, and took unauthorized hours-long breaks during his shift. At summary judgment, the district court ruled against Dunlevy because it concluded that the conduct at issue was so different that the men were not similarly situated, leaving Dunlevy unable to establish a prima facie case of disparate punishment. We reverse because the district court drew too narrow a comparison: The two men are sufficiently similarly situated for Dunlevy to at least bring his claims to trial. Springfield’s publicly owned utility, City Water Light and Power, employs water meter readers. The utility assigns the meter readers a route to follow each month. On their routes, the meter readers visit each residential and commercial customer location, find the meter there, and enter the corresponding data into a handheld computer. There is no handbook or policy manual for meter readers; they primarily receive on-the-job training. Meter readers, like most City employees, are subject to a twelve-month probationary period at the beginning of their employment, as required by City ordinance. Springfield, Ill., Code § 36.11 (2021). During the probationary period employees can have their employment summarily terminated. Only after the probationary period ends are employees “certified,” which entitles them to certain employment protections. Meter readers work for the utility, but the mayor is the ultimate decisionmaker in all hiring and firing for the City. In September 2017, Mayor Langfelder hired Dunlevy and Murray as meter readers. Both men received the same pay and were placed on the twelve-month probationary period. The two men also had the same supervisory structure: they directly reported to the same supervisor, and there were five levels of supervision between them and the mayor. Near the end of their probationary periods, both Dunlevy and Murray were the subjects of investigations into misconduct. Supervisors discovered that Dunlevy had inaccurately recorded meters at seven different homes, a practice known as “curbing meters.” Whether Dunlevy did so accidentally or intentionally was of no importance to his supervisors. Two supervisors testified at a deposition that curbing meters is a fireable offense, even for protected employees. As for Murray, supervisors discovered that he had been starting work late, leaving work early, and walking off the job while on duty, sometimes for up to three hours. Murray also lied on his employment application by failing to disclose a seven-year-old burglary conviction on his self-identification form, even though the city required applicants to disclose any prior convictions. Although lying on a job application is considered a fireable offense, one witness stated that the City does not require applicants to disclose convictions that are more than seven years old. All of the supervisors who worked beneath the mayor unanimously agreed that both men should be fired, and they presented this recommendation to the mayor. Langfelder fired Dunlevy, but not Murray. He extended Murray’s probationary period by another six months. Langfelder testified that he understood that Murray’s conduct involved only taking 15-minute lunch breaks, which was merely a training issue. Dunlevy brought an equal protection claim (under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) against Langfelder and an Illinois Human Rights Act claim (under 775 ILCS 5/2-101) and a Title VII claim (under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e) against the City for disparate punishment based on his race.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Oct 26,  .. PSC:    Com. v. Jones  ..  During Appellant’s trial, Joseph Johnson testified that on the evening of January 4, 2009, Appellant entered Johnson’s home with another individual and struck Johnson’s head with a gun, stating: “I’ll leave you dead and stinking here.”    Appellant then shot Johnson in the face and fled. Johnson staggered outside in search of assistance and collapsed near the corner of Green and Berkley Streets.    Rasheen Owens, a passerby, saw Johnson fall to the ground between 9:30 p.m. and 10 p.m.    Owens called the police and stayed with Johnson until assistance arrived.    In his defense, Appellant presented three alibi witnesses, including his nephew, Carl Honeyblue, and Appellant himself testified.    The thrust of Appellant’s defense was that (1) on the evening of the shooting, he and other individuals attended a party at a location about 1.4 miles from Johnson’s house; (2) he left the party at 10:00 p.m. to drive other partygoers home; and (3) he did not enter Johnson’s house or shoot Johnson.    Appellant admitted, however, that he had hired Johnson to perform manual labor but fired him one day before the shooting after they had an argument.    Appellant also admitted having prior convictions for theft and criminal trespass.    The jury found Appellant guilty of attempted murder, aggravated assault and related offenses. On December 10, 2010, the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 20-40 years’ imprisonment. ... CONTINUED  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Oct 26,  .. 7th Cir.:    Tate v. Thomas J. Dart  ..  Plaintiff-appellant Larry Tate has worked for the Sheriff of Cook County in the Department of Corrections since 2007.    In his third year as a correctional of- ficer, Tate suffered a back injury. He returned to work under medical restrictions that required him to “avoid situations in which there is a significant chance of violence or conflict.”    After Tate was promoted to sergeant, the Sheriff’s Office agreed to accommodate this medical restriction by allowing him to work in the Classification Unit, where the possibility of violence or physical conflict was relatively remote.    But when Tate sought a promotion to lieutenant, he was told that the Sheriff could not accommodate him in that posi- tion. Correctional lieutenants had to be “able to manage and [defuse] regular, violent situations involving inmates.” Since Tate’s medical restrictions would prevent him from performing this essential function, the Sheriff’s Department said, he would remain a sergeant.    Tate sued for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Illinois Human Rights Act.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Oct 25,  .. 10th Cir.:    Thompson v. Little America Hotel  ..  Little America Hotel Company fired Larisa Thompson, a gift store supervisor in the Retail Department, after thirteen years of employment.    From the start of her employment, Ms. Thompson struggled with following rules and getting along with her coworkers.    Two years prior to her termination, Little America promoted her coworker Kari Lund to be Ms. Thompson’s direct supervisor.    Ms. Lund “wrote up” Ms. Thompson frequently and brought Ms. Thompson’s performance issues to the attention of upper management, causing Little America’s general manager, Mark Mundel, to become involved.    Mr. Mundel started coaching Ms. Thompson directly for over a year, meeting with her on several occasions.    After Ms. Thompson disobeyed Mr. Mundel’s coaching instructions multiple times, Mr. Mundel made the decision to terminate her employment.    Ms. Thompson is from Russia and claimed Little America terminated her employment on the basis of her national origin in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).    She sued Little America, alleging Ms. Lund harbored animus against her due to her Russian identity leading Ms. Lund to create a paper trail of violations which eventually led to Mr. Mundel’s decision to terminate her employment.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Oct 25,  .. 11th Cir.:    Harris v. Interior  ..  In March 2018, a DOI supervisor issued a notice of proposed removal of Ms. Harris for cause from her position as a Fish and Wildlife Biologist, for   (1)   being absent without leave,   (2)   failure to follow leave procedures,   (3)   lack of candor,   (4)   misuses of a government vehicle, and   (5)   inappropriate conduct.    The supervisor determined that removal was the appropriate penalty for Harris’s misconduct.    The DOI agreed and removed Harris effective April 20, 2018.    Harris then filed an Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) complaint alleging she was terminated based on her disabilities and in discrimination for her prior EEO activity.    In February 2019, the DOI issued a final decision finding that Harris had not been subjected to employment discrimination, and informed her that she had the right to appeal the decision to the MSPB within 30 days or to file a civil action in the appropriate district court within 30 days, which was her only avenue if her claim arose under the Civil Rights Act.    Harris appealed to the MSPB, challenging her removal; the MSPB affirmed the DOI’s action, noted that the decision would become final on December 23, 2019 and informed her of the deadlines for an appeal.    Harris filed a petition for review of the MSPB’s decision with the Federal Circuit.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Oct 25,  .. 2d Cir.:    Morgan v. County of Warren  ..  In her Complaint, Ms Morgan alleges that she served in the Warren County Attorney’s Office as a paralegal in a permanent civil service position, and that, on December 21, 2018, Kissane initiated workplace disciplinary charges against Morgan based on false allegations relayed to her by Geraghty.    Ms. Morgan alleges that Geraghty either knew the allegations were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truthfulness of his allegations, and that Kissane acted with reckless disregard of the truthfulness of Geraghty’s assertions.    In connection with a disciplinary hearing held in January of 2019, Kissane appointed a hearing officer, gave testimony at the hearing, and, on March 26, 2019, adopted the hearing officer’s recommendation to find Morgan guilty of eight of the nine disciplinary charges that Kissane had levied. That same day, Kissane terminated Morgan’s civil service position for cause.    On June 20, 2019, Morgan commenced an Article 78 proceeding challenging Kissane’s termination decision.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Oct 25,  .. CCA:    Roe v. Hacienda La Puente  ..  Ms. Roe attended Los Altos High School.    In 2010, after ninth grade, she sought to enroll in a summer school chemistry class, to prepare for an advanced placement (AP) class in the fall.    The summer class was full but the teacher, David Park, told Roe she could attend on a noncredit basis. She sat by Park’s desk because there were no other available seats in the classroom.    Park never spoke inappropriately to Roe in class or in front of others; however, he obtained her cell phone number and began texting her outside of school, asking questions about her sex life. Roe knew the texts were inappropriate but decided not to tell anyone.    She felt scared, did not want to be in the limelight, and believed people would think she was at fault.    In 10th grade, Roe ate lunch with Park in his classroom, almost daily, for the entire school year. Sometimes they were joined by other students. Roe and Park talked about her home, parents and school; they did not discuss sex.    Roe’s AP chemistry teacher, Mr. Ackerman, was in an adjoining classroom and, according to Roe, was “aware” that Roe and Park lunched together. No other school staff members knew of their lunches. ... CONTINUED  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)


♦       Oct 24,  .. FLRA:  AFGE v. Air Force  ..  Arbitrator Robert M. Lustig found that the parties had reached agreement on a new collective-bargaining agreement, and the Union was therefore obligated under the parties’ ground-rules agreement and § 7114(b)(5) of the Federal Service Labor‑Management Relations Statute (Statute) to execute that agreement.    The Union filed an exception alleging that the award is contrary to law because it requires the parties to execute an agreement that violates Executive Order 14,003 [2] (EO 14003). We find that the award is not contrary to law and deny the exception.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Oct 24,  .. FLRA:  NAIL v. Air Force  ..  As relevant here, the Union filed a grievance alleging that the Agency violated the parties’ agreement by failing to award pay increases in a “fair and equitable manner.”    Specifically, the Union asserted that the Agency awarded bargaining-unit employees (unit employees) a lesser increase than non‑unit employees. The dispute proceeded to arbitration, where the parties stipulated the issues as whether “the Agency follow[ed] the terms of the [parties’] agreement in determining performance-based pay increases for covered bargaining[‑]unit employees” and “[i]f not, what shall be the remedy?”  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Oct 24,  .. 2d Cir.:    Tassy v. Buttigieg  ..  In the summer of 2015, plaintiff-appellant Jean-Claude Tassy, then a technical operator at John F. Kennedy International Airport, began his training to become an Aviation Safety Inspector (“ASI”) for the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”). As an “ASI-in-training,” Tassy had to complete three levels of on-the-job training. Tassy quickly completed the first two levels, involving classroom instruction and observation in the field, respectively.    But he third level, which required the trainee to complete certain tasks himself, proved to be an obstacle: A year-and-a-half in, Tassy had completed only 30 percent of the Level 3 training.    After two-and-a-half years of training, he remained at 35 percent. According to Tassy, his failure to make progress in his ASI training was because he was intentionally excluded from training opportunities on account of his race.    After filing an unsuccessful complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleging that the FAA failed to train Tassy and subjected him to a hostile work environment because of his race, color, and national origin, Tassy filed suit against defendant-appellee the Secretary of the Department of Transportation (“DOT”) in the Eastern District of New York.    He argued that the FAA, a component of the DOT, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., because it discriminated against Tassy on the basis of his race, color, and national origin.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Oct 24,  .. FLRA:  NTEU v. HHS  ..  This case involves a dispute over whether the Agency was allowed to implement a Federal Service Impasses Panel (the Panel) Decision and Order (Order) prior to the completion of bargaining on a successor collective‑bargaining agreement (CBA). In a merits award, Arbitrator Roger P. Kaplan found that the Agency violated 5 U.S.C. § 7116(a)(1) and the parties’ 2010 CBA when it implemented the Order before it completed bargaining on a successor CBA. The Arbitrator also issued a remedial award.    The Agency argues the merits award is contrary to the Federal Service Labor‑Management Relations Statute (Statute) and Authority precedent.    The Agency also files nonfact and exceeds-authority exceptions challenging the remedial award.    The Agency’s nonfact exception is barred by §§ 2425.4(c) and 2429.5 of the Authority’s Regulations; therefore, we dismiss it.    We also deny the Agency’s contrary‑to‑law and exceeds‑authority exceptions because they do not demonstrate how the merits award or the remedial award are deficient.    The Union argues the merits award is contrary to the Statute. The Union also argues the remedial award is contrary to law, fails to draw its essence from the 2010 CBA, and is based on a nonfact.    Finally, the Union asks the Authority to remand the matter of attorney fees to the Arbitrator. We find the merits award is contrary to law, in part, because the Arbitrator failed to apply Authority precedent to find the Agency’s actions constituted a violation of 5 U.S.C. § 7116(a)(5).    We also grant the Union’s request to remand the matter of attorney fees because the Arbitrator failed to adhere to Authority precedent.    However, we deny the Union’s remaining exceptions because they fail to demonstrate how the awards are defective.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Oct 24,  .. ISC:    Braaksma v. Sibley-Ocheyedan  ..  Administrators at the Sibley-Ocheyedan Community School District raised concerns about the performance of one of the district’s high school teachers and required her to participate in an “intensive assistance program” described in Iowa Code chapter 284.    Under the school district’s own policy implementing chapter 284, teachers required to participate in an intensive assistance program have at minimum six months, and at most twelve months, to complete the program.    If, following a teacher’s participation in the program, the teacher has not successfully completed the program or continues to fail to meet performance standards, then the school district has the power (among other options) to immediately terminate the teacher’s employment.    In this case, the school district fired the teacher, Ms. Braaksma, before she’d been afforded six months to carry out her intensive assistance program. The school district argues that, under Iowa Code section 279.27, it possessed the power to terminate Braaksma at any time during the contract year for “just cause” regardless of any ongoing intensive assistance program. Braaksma, for her part, argues that she was denied her contractual and statutory right to complete the intensive assistance program before the school district fired her and that, in any event, the school district had insufficient evidence of any performance problems to establish just cause for her firing.    Ms. Braaksma appealed the school board’s decision to terminate her teaching contract to the district court, which in turn affirmed the school board’s decision. Ms. Braaksma then appealed to this court.    We transferred the case to the court of appeals.       The school board sought further review.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)


♦       Oct 10,  .. 3rd Cir.:    Koslosky v. American Airlines  ..  In September 2017, several posts she had made on her public Facebook page went viral. One post, purportedly quoting a certain Dan Pflaum, stated: If I were Black in America, I think I’d get down on my knees every day and thank my lucky stars that my ancestors were brought over here as slaves.    Koslosky worked as a customer service agent for American at the Philadelphia International Airport. During her tenure, the airline operated many of its flights at that airport out of Terminals B and C. On August 16, 2016, Koslosky requested she be assigned to work exclusively at gates in Terminal B on account of edema in her leg that limited her ability to engage in “excessive walking.” Supp. Appx. 35–36, 118–121. After reviewing her request for accommodation, American’s Human Resources department denied the request but instead offered to accommodate Koslosky by assigning her exclusively to other roles that did not require excessive walking.    In response to the furor, American suspended Koslosky. In October 2017, American terminated Koslosky’s employment for violating its social media, passenger service conduct, and work environment policies.3 Believing she was fired unjustly and discriminated against on account of her disability and her gender, Koslosky brought a series of legal actions against the company.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Oct 10,  .. CCA:    Randhawa v. Hanford Community Hospital  ..  Randhawa was employed by AHH as a microbiologist. On November 20, 2018, AHH terminated Randhawa’s employment. According to AHH, Randhawa’s employment was terminated for violating privacy and confidentiality policies of AHH, as well as various state and federal laws including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).    At the time his employment was terminated, Randhawa was on medical leave for anxiety disorder, stress and other ailments due to an alleged “hostile work environment” created by Randhawa’s supervisor and AHH management. His employment was terminated one week before his scheduled return to work from his medical leave.    The termination notice Randhawa received stated, in part: “As you [i.e., Randhawa] are aware, on 08/31/2018, you admitted during your deposition that you copied various medical records and other documents in both paper and electronic format, removed these copied records from [AHH’s] premises, and then copied these records and documents onto your home personal computer which is available to other people.    You also testified you e-mailed documents containing protected health information [PHI] to yourself.[3 ]”    Randhawa filed suit against AHH alleging numerous claims of harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Oct 10,  .. FLRA:  United States Park Police v. PPLC  ..  During a federal government shutdown, certain employees are “except[ed]” – and may still be required to work – if they provide services involving the “safety of human life or the protection of property.” [4] Because the grievants are excepted employees, the Agency required them to work during the government shutdown in 2018 without pay. The Union filed a grievance alleging that the Agency violated the FLSA by failing to timely pay the grievants their regular and overtime wages during the shutdown. The Union claimed that the Agency was required to pay liquidated damages due to the untimely payments.    In the merits award, the Arbitrator found that the FLSA requires agencies to timely pay its employees. Furthermore, the Arbitrator noted that the United States Court of Federal Claims has found that an agency’s obligation to timely pay its employees persists during a government shutdown. [5] As a result, the Arbitrator held that the Agency violated the FLSA by failing to timely pay the grievants, found that the Agency failed to establish a good‑faith defense under the FLSA, and concluded that the Agency was required to pay liquidated damages to the Union. Neither party filed exceptions to the merits award.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Oct 10,  .. Conn. App. Ct.:    Fiveash v. Delong  ..  The plaintiff was hired on or about May 5, 2015, as director of member services at CCM. Throughout the plaintiff’s tenure with CCM, she received positive employment reviews. In 2018, however, several employ- ees in the plaintiff’s department resigned while she was the director. During exit interviews, a few of those employees expressed displeasure with working for the plaintiff and voiced complaints about her. In response to these negative complaints, DeLong, the executive director of CCM, instructed Brooks, the director of human resources, to conduct an investigation into the allegations coming from the member services depart- ment. The plaintiff was notified by letter of the work- place complaints and the initiation of an investigation and was placed on a paid suspension pending the com- pletion of the investigation. The investigation focused on, inter alia, whether the plaintiff abused her authority, micromanaged, created an unhealthy work environ- ment, and/or failed to respect authority. Following the investigation, Brooks issued an investigation report, which substantiated many of the allegations against the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s employment with CCM was terminated on October 19, 2018. In June, 2019, the plaintiff commenced an action against Brooks, DeLong, and Thomas, who served as deputy director of CCM, claiming that they aided and abetted gender discrimination against her in violation of General Statutes § 46a-60 (b) (5).1 In August, 2019, she commenced a separate action against CCM and CIRMA claiming that they committed workplace dis- crimination against her on the basis of gender in viola- tion of § 46a-60 (b) (1)2 and retaliated against her in violation of § 46a-60 (b) (4).  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

October 10 Birthdays :   Oscar Brown  *  Ben Vereen  *  Bradley Whitford  *  Mýa       Tanya Tucker  *  Lily Tuck  *  Janis Hansen  *  Cyril Neville  *  Nora Roberts  *  Julia Sweeney  *  Crystal Waters  *  Rebecca Pidgeon  *  Bai Ling  *  Wendi McLendon-Covey  *  Lzzy Hale  *  Aimee Teegarden          Mario Lopez  *  Ed Wood  *  Dale Earnhardt Jr.  *  Richard Jaeckel  *  Dana Elcar  *  Jon Locke  *  Peter Coyote  *  John Prine  *  Kevin McFoy Dunn  *  David Lee Roth  *  Eric Martin  *  Tim Maurer  *  Daniel Pearl  *  Chris Penn  *  Mike Malinin  *  Gavin Newsom  *  Brett Favre  *  Dean Roland  *  Michael Carter-Williams    - - - - -    October 10 Deaths :   Solomon Burke  *  Orson Welles  *  Ralph Metcalfe  *  Christopher Reeve  *  Alex Karras  *  Scott Carpenter  *  George Washington Parke Custis  *  William H. Seward  *  Lorenzo Snow  *  Adolphus Busch  *  Eddie Cantor  *  Ralph Marterie  *  Clark Clifford  *  Marvin Gay, Sr.  *  Cal Smith  *  Steve Mackay  *  Sybil Stockdale

September 27 Birthdays :   Don Cornelius  *  Lil Wayne  *  Diane Abbott  *  Tamara Taylor             Corinne Roosevelt Robinson  *  Martha Jefferson Randolph  *  Sada Thompson  *  Anna Camp  *  Cheryl Tiegs  *  Clara Hughes  *  Angélica María  *  Kathy Whitworth  *  Diane Abbott  *  Debbie Wasserman Schultz  *  Sophie Crumb  *  Carrie Brownstein  *  Gwyneth Paltrow  *  Sylvia Crawley  *  Stephanie Wilson             Harry Blackstone  *  Samuel Adams  *  Meat Loaf  *  Ryan O'Shaughnessy  *  Avril Lavigne  *  Darrent Williams  *  Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa  *  Jon McLaughlin  *  Steve Kerr  *  Marc Maron  *  Shaun Cassidy  *  Greg Ham  *  Wilford Brimley  *  Greg Morris  *  Calvin Jones  *  Red Rodney  *  Bud Powell    - - - - -    September 27 Deaths :   Marty Balin  *  Michael Payton  *  Hugh Hefner  *  David Hahn  *  James Traficant  *  Oscar Castro-Neves  *  Frank Wilson  *  Eddie Bert  *  George Blanda  *  William Safire  *  Henri Pachard  *  Donald O'Connor  *  Jimmy Doolittle  *  Cliff Burton  *  Lloyd Nolan  *  Robert Montgomery  *  Gracie Fields  *  Clara Bow  *  Engelbert Humperdinck  *  Edgar Degas    - - - - -    September 27 Events :   1908 - First Model-T Ford rolls off assembly line in Detroit.  *  1962 - Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring is published.


♦       Sep 27,  .. D.D.C.:    Hudson, Jr. v. American Federation of Government Employees  ..  In the fall of 2016, Plaintiff Eugene Hudson, Jr., had more than one presidential election on his mind, as he had just declared his candidacy for President of Defendant American Federation of Government Employees.    Following that declaration, he sent out a series of mass communications to the Union and its officers, including an email reacting to the results of the U.S. presidential election.    In response, AFGE charged Hudson with violating a series of Union rules by distributing those communications, and it subsequently removed him as National Secretary-Treasurer.    Hudson believes that he was kicked out of office not because he violated any rules, but because his communications contained criticism of AFGE’s handling of its finances.    His suit here challenges his removal.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Sep 27,  .. Fed. Cir.:    Johnson v. Air Force  ..  Mr. Johnson worked as a firefighter at Dyess Air Force Base from 2017 to 2019.    Around March 2018, Mr. Johnson’s mother came to live with Mr. Johnson and his family.    She was then taking around thirteen pills to treat various health issues. App. 45. Around the same time, Mr. Johnson was also taking “seven or eight” pills.    As a condition of his employment, Mr. Johnson was subject to random drug testing because the Air Force considered his position to be “sufficiently critical to the Air Force mission or to the protection of public safety.”    The Air Force selected Mr. Johnson for a drug test on October 30, 2018.    He tested positive for oxycodone and oxymorphone.    Shortly after, Mr. Johnson informed his supervisor, Chief Gregory Ranard, of the positive drug test and his belief that he had accidentally taken one of his mother’s pills instead of his own prescribed medication.    Chief Ranard proposed that Mr. Johnson be fired. ... CONTINUED  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Sep 27,  .. 10th Cir.:    Parker v. United Airlines  ..  This case involves provisions of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).    This statute prohibits employers from retaliating against employees for taking FMLA leave. 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2). We may assume for the sake of argument that the prohibition would ordinarily apply when an employer adopts an immediate supervisor’s recommendation to fire an employee for taking FMLA leave.    With that assumption, we must decide whether the prohibition would apply when the employee obtains consideration by independent decisionmakers.    We answer no.    Retaliation entails a causal link between an employee’s use of FMLA leave and the firing. That causal link is broken when an independent decisionmaker conducts her own investigation and decides to fire the employee. ... CONTINUED  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Sep 27,  .. 11th Cir.:    Jones v. City of Birmingham  ..  Jones, a black man, works for the City as a police officer. In 2015, he filed a charge of discrimination against the City with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, accusing another officer named Julie Quigley-Vining of retaliation and discrimination. In 2016, Jones filed a federal lawsuit that settled three years later. In 2018, the police department began investigating Jones for performing paid work on the side while on the clock as a police officer. The commanding officer, Nashonda Howard, assigned officer Rebecca Herrera to conduct the investigation.    Shortly thereafter, the department launched another investigation into Jones’s handling of a car accident that caused the death of a pedestrian. Howard again assigned Herrera to investigate, and Jones asked that she be removed from the investigation because she was friends with Quigley-Vining—the subject of his earlier lawsuit. David Rockett, the officer in charge of the investigative division, denied his request. At the conclusion of the second investigation, Rockett decided to send Jones a “letter of counseling” because he failed to activate his body camera while investigating the traffic accident.    Jones was later at a meeting with the department’s deputy chief, Michael Richards, who threatened those present against making any complaints to the EEOC, human resources, or the police chief. Jones subsequently filed another charge of discrimination with the EEOC, and then filed this case in federal court.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Sep 27,  .. FLRA:  NOAA v. AFGE  ..  National Association of Independent Labor (NAIL) filed an application for review (application) of the attached decision and order (decision) of Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) Regional Director Richard S. Jones (the RD). The RD denied NAIL’s representation petitions, which sought to clarify its pre-existing bargaining-unit certifications following an Agency reorganization.    The RD found NAIL’s units were not appropriate under § 7112(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute).    Rather, the RD granted American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2875’s (AFGE’s) petition, which also sought to clarify its pre-existing bargaining unit certification and include, as relevant here, bargaining-unit employees that fell under NAIL’s certifications.    In the application, NAIL argues that the RD erred in finding the AFGE unit appropriate.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Sep 27,  .. FLRA:  Bremerton Metal Trades Council v. NAVY  ..  The Authority’s Office of Case Intake and Publication (CIP) issued an order directing the Union to cure procedural defects in its exceptions filing.    The Union failed to timely respond to the Authority’s order, and has not established extraordinary circumstances justifying a waiver of its failure to respond within the time limit.    Therefore, we dismiss the Union’s exceptions.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)



DONALD J. TRUMP v UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before ROSENEAUM, GRANT, and BRASHER. 11th Circuit judges.       September 21, 2022

PER CURIAM:

Following the execution of a search warrant at the residence of Plaintiff-Appellee, former President Donald ]. Trump, Plaintiff moved for the appointment of a special master to review the documents that Defendant-Appellant United States ofAmerica seized. The district court granted that motion in substantial part. Now, the United States moves for a partial stay of the district court’s order as it relates to the roughly one-hundred documents bearing classification markings. We decide only the narrow question presented: whether the United States has established that it is entitled to a stay of the district court’s order, to the extent that it (1) requires the government to submit for the special master’s review the documents with classification markings and (Z) enjoins the United States from using that subset of documents in a criminal investigation. We conclude that it has.

We stress the limited nature of our review: this matter comes to us on a motion for a partial stay pending appeal. We cannot (and do not) decide the merits of this case. We decide only the traditional equitable considerations. including whether the United States has shown a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits, the harm each party might suffer from a stay, and where the public interest lies.

For the reasons we explain below. we grant the United States's motion for a partial stay pending appeal.  ..  COURT DECISION:   USCA11_CaseNumber_22-13005    (.pdf)    4mb

September 22 Birthdays :   Mystikal  *  King Sunny Adé  *  Jeremiah Wright          Bonnie Hunt  *  Jenn Colella  *  Joan Jett  *  Johnette Napolitano  *  Debby Boone  *  Catherine Oxenberg  *  Joni James  *  Laura Vandervoort  *  Rima Fakih  *  Daniella Alonso  *  Emilie Autumn  *  Rosamunde Pilcher  *  Fay Weldon  *  Joan Jett  *  Lillian Chestney  *  Martha Scott  *  Tai Babilonia          Joe Valachi  *  Paul Muni  *  Tommy Lasorda  *  Jon Bass  *  Ken Vandermark  *  Scott Baio  *  Andrea Bocelli  *  Neil Cavuto  *  Ibrahim Shema  *  David Coverdale  *  David Stern  *  Will Elder  *  Billy West  *  Arthur Pryor  *  Michael Faraday  *  Nick Cave  *  Chen Ning Yang  *  John S. Tanner  *  Shigeru Yoshida  *     - - - - -    September 22 Deaths :   Dorothy Lamour  *  Edna Molewa  *  Marion Davies  *  Nathan Hale  *  Dan Rowan  *  David H. Hubel  *  Jane Connell  *  Eddie Fisher  *  Marcel Marceau  *  ʻAlí-Muhammad Varqá  *  Edward Albert  *  Gordon Jump  *  Isaac Stern  *  Irving Berlin  *  Ambrose Folorunsho Alli    - - - - -    September 22 Events :    *   * 

OPM WEBSITE   ♦ OPM Coronavirus Guidance   ♦ Guidance And Notifications FOR FEDS Performance Management Tips for a Hybrid Workplace.

♦       Sep 22,  .. D.D.C.:    Ferguson v. WMATA Authority,  ..  Plaintiff is an African American male, who was first employed by WMATA in 2012.    Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (“Defendant” or “WMATA”).    In 2017, Plaintiff was serving as the “Acting” Director of WMATA’s Office of Transit Asset Management (“TAMO”).    He applied to serve as the full-time Director for that position. Id. Plaintiff claims that he was required to submit his application twice, after being told that his initial application had not been received.    The exhibit cited by Plaintiff appears to list all applicants for that position, and lists his name twice with different “last updated” dates (11/15/17 and 2/5/18).    The entry for the earlier “last updated” date is coded as an application from an “external applicant,” whereas the latter is marked as an “employee.”    Although this exhibit appears to confirm Plaintiff’s statement that he submitted two different applications, it does not demonstrate his reason for doing so.    Plaintiff was not interviewed or hired for the TAMO Director position.    Instead, WMATA hired Gregory Collins, a white male, in February 2018.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Sep 22,  .. D.D.C.:    Baptiste v. Booz Allen Hamilton  ..  Soon after Booz Allen hired him, Jean-Baptiste submitted a racial discrimination claim to Booz Allen and the EEOC. See id. He asserted that he was the “only black male and Haitian exclusion [sic] from [sic] training conference essential for [his] role.    He also claimed that his co-worker stated she “hated black people” and exhibited hostility toward him.    And he complained that armed FBI agents accosted him and searched his office.    Booz Allen investigated Jean-Baptiste’s claims and found them meritless.    Booz Allen then asked Jean-Baptiste to undergo a fitness for duty exam, but he did not report for the exam.    So Booz Allen fired Jean-Baptiste in February 2020, about seven months after hiring him.    Jean-Baptiste first sued Booz Allen and other federal Defendants in April 2020 alleging violations of Title VII and his constitutional rights, illegal invasion of privacy under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), and more.    April 30, 2020). 2 After amending his Complaint several times, Jean-Baptiste sought voluntary dismissal, which this Court granted.    Jean-Baptiste filed this case nearly two years later, suing Booz Allen under many of the same theories.    Jean-Baptiste seeks a declaratory judgment, damages, reinstatement of his employment, and more.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)       __

♦       Sep 22,  .. ICA:    Swanson v. Oldenburger  ..  Swanson was employed by Wapello County as an assistant county attorney for about six years. During that time, he received several warnings for failure to satisfactorily resolve cases.    Lisa Holl, Oldenburger’s predecessor, gave Swanson a written reprimand in 2012 and suspended him for one week without pay in 2014.    In 2015, Oldenburger emailed Swanson about his failure to resolve cases within one year before issuing a four-page letter of reprimand. A second email followed the reprimand.    When Swanson continued to have problems with case resolution one year later, Oldenburger gave Swanson a choice: resign from employment or be terminated. Oldenburger drafted a notice of termination that summarized the past disciplinary actions and Swanson’s continued difficulties with case resolution that led to dismissals for failure to prosecute.    Oldenburger signed and dated the notice on November 28, 2016.    Swanson’s signature of acknowledgment is absent from the document as Swanson opted to resign instead. His effective date of resignation was December 23, 2016.    In 2018, Swanson ran for Boone County Attorney against the incumbent, Dan Kolacia. Believing that Swanson was unfairly campaigning against him, Kolacia asked Oldenburger if he had any documents to help in his bid for reelection.  ..  COURT DECISION:    (.html)   (.pdf)

September 21 Birthdays :   Wale  *  Jason Derulo  *  Billy Porter  *  James Lesure  *  Taral Hicks  *  Alfonso Ribeiro  *  Ben Bailey Smith  *  Chico Hamilton          Diane Rehm  *  Fannie Flagg  *  Cheryl Hines  *  Faith Hill  *  Ricki Lake  *  Nicole Richie  *  Frances Mary Albrier  *  Nancy Travis  *  Kareena Kapoor  *  Anne Burrell  *  Melissa Ferrick  *  Maggie Grace  *  Gail Russell  *  Lindsey Stirling  *  Autumn Reeser  *  Christian Serratos  *  Allison Scagliotti  *  Sigrid Valdis  *  Tracy Reed  *  Kristine Froseth  *  Ahna O'Reilly  *  Shelly Conn  *  Mary Mara  *  Jessica St. Clair          Bill Murray  *  Stephen King  *  Papa Jack Laine  *  Chuck Jones  *  Herman Fowlkes, Jr.  *  David James Elliott  *  John McHale  *  Donald A. Glaser  *  Larry Hagman  *  Phil Taylor  *  Don Preston  *  Henry Gibson  *  Dickey Lee  *  Doug Moe  *  Nick Castle  *  Bill Kurtis  *  Jerry Bruckheimer  *  Steve Beshear  *  Don Felder  *  Artis Gilmore  *  Bill Murray  *  Shinzo Abe  *  Mark Levin  *  Cecil Fielder  *  Scott Evans  *  Luke Wilson  *     - - - - -    September 21 Deaths :   Florence Griffith Joyner  *  Walter Brennan  *  Jacqueline Susann  *  Chief Joseph  *  Harry Carey  *  Bo Carter  *  Rex Humbard  *  Jaco Pastorius  *  Robert Ginty  *  José Curbelo  *  Willie Garson  *  Takis Kanellopoulos    - - - - -    September 21 Events :    * 

OPM WEBSITE   ♦ OPM Coronavirus Guidance   ♦ Guidance And Notifications FOR FEDS Performance Management Tips for a Hybrid Workplace.

♦       Sep 21,  .. D.C. Cir.:    Webster v. Del Toro  ..  Ms. Webster worked as a secretary for the Navy. In 2017, Webster filed a charge alleging that Richard Garland, a Navy contractor, had subjected her to a hostile work environment.    According to Webster, Garland made comments describing her as trouble and telling co-workers to watch out or turn away when she approached.    Webster also alleged that Garland, who provided IT support, once tried to remove a printer from her desk.    The Navy investigated Webster’s charge. During the investigation, Webster provided a sworn statement naming Garland as the individual responsible for her harassment and backing away from the allegation that Croley had permitted it.    Webster further stated her view that Garland knew of her prior EEO activity, and she suggested that Croley may have told him.    Lieutenant Tarik Yameen, the deputy branch head under Croley, testified that he was unaware of Webster’s EEO activity when she filed the complaint against Garland. ... CONTINUED     ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Sep 21,  .. 11th Cir.:    Bradley v. Postmaster General  ..  Mr. Bradley appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Postmaster General on his claims for retaliation and a retaliatory hostile work environment.    Bradley’s claims stem from a romantic relationship with his then- supervisor Postmaster Monica Fountain. Bradley alleges that Fountain took retaliatory disciplinary actions against him after he ended their affair.    For several years, Bradley made numerous filings with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission relating to these incidents.    This action derives from his removal in 2016. At summary judgment Bradley was unable to present evidence causally connecting the EEOC filings with his removal, in large part because Fountain was no longer his supervisor when he was removed.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Sep 21,  .. MSC:    State v. K. Pennington,  ..  Ms. Pennington provided care to Walter Holland. On September 10, 2015, Walter’s grandson reported unusual charges and possibly forged checks to the Lewis and Clark County Sheriff’s Office.    The Deputy assigned to the case concluded that Pennington had written checks to herself from Walter’s account without his consent and used his credit card for purchases he did not authorize.    On May 24, 2016, the State filed an Information charging Pennington with Count I: exploitation of older person, a felony, and Count II: deceptive practices, a felony. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the State dismissed Count II and Pennington pled guilty to an amended Count I, felony theft. On January 4, 2018, the court deferred imposition of sentence for a period of six years to provide her with enough time to pay the $15,385.89 restitution obligation.    The sentence placed Pennington on formal probation and she was required to abide by numerous conditions and requirements.    On December 4, 2018, Pennington consumed alcohol, a compliance violation, which she admitted to her Probation and Parole Officer, Erica Schell (Schell).    On December 23, 2018, Pennington was arrested and cited by Helena Police for Driving While Privilege To Do So Was Suspended or Revoked.    On January 3, 2019, Pennington told Schell that she was cited for a DUI.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Sep 21,  .. D.D.C.:    Holston v. Mnuchin  ..  Mr. Holston was a federal employee for 30 years, and for 20 of those years he served as a Criminal Investigator/Special Agent (“SA”) for the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Agency”), Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (“TIGTA”), working for the Forensic and Digital Science Library (“FDSL”).    Mr. Holston received (1) “Exceeded” performance appraisals for 2016, 2017, and 2018; (2) “Individual Cash Awards” in 2015, 2017 and 2017; (3) “Individual Time-Off Awards in 2015 and 2018; and (4) letters of recognition from the President of the United States, TIGTA, the Department of Justice, and other federal agencies.    Mr. Holston’s first line supervisor was Mr. Robert Lesnevich, his second line supervisor was Mr. Jeffrey Long, and his third line supervisor was Mr. James Jackson.    All three are white males. Id. From October 1, 2015 until June 2019,    Mr. Holston was the only African American male SA within his three supervisor’s lines of supervision.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

September 20 Birthdays :   Jelly Roll Morton  *  Slappy white  *  Eric Gale  *  Deborah Roberts  *  Debbie Morgan  *  N'Bushe Wright  *  Victoria Dillard  *  Clarice Taylor  *  Dante Hall  *  Aldis Hodge  *  Enuka Okuma  *  Dante Hall             Sophia Loren  *  Betsy Brantley  *  Jennifer Tour Chayes  *  Victoria Mallory  *  Kristen Johnston  *  Samantha Hanratty  *  Gogi Grant  *  Moon Bloodgood  *  Asia Argento  *  Edy Ganem  *  Ainsley Earhardt  *  Anne Meara  *  Michelle Visage  *  Fernando Rey  *  Wallis Day  *  Maggie Cheung  *  Parisa Fakkri  *  Karen Sharpe  *  Mathilde Olliver  *  Spencer Locke  *  Clarice Taylor  *  Jude Deveraux  *  Sidney Dillon Ripley  *  Upton Sinclair  *  Red Auerbach  *  Robert Rusler  *  Jay Ward  *  Jackie Paris  *  Bobby Nunn  *  Red Mitchell  *  Richard Montague  *  Jeff Morris  *  Jim Taylor  *  William Finley  *  Dale Chihuly  *  Billy Bang  *  Malachy McCourt  *  Bruce Pasternack  *  George R. R. Martin  *  Gary Cole  *  Steve Coleman  *  Randy Bradbury  *  Gunnar Nelson  *  Ronald McKinnon  *  Héctor Camacho Jr.  *  Jordan Tata    - - - - -    September 20 Deaths :   Jim Croce  *  Steve Goodman  *  Jule Styne  *  Paul Weston  *  Polly Bergen    - - - - -    September 20 Events :   1973 – Singer Jim Croce , songwriter and musician Maury Muehleisen and four others die when their light aircraft crashes on takeoff at Natchitoches Regional Airport in Louisiana.  *  1984 - The Cosby Show premiered on NBC.

♦       Sep 20,  .. D.D.C.:    Thompson v. Hicaps Inc  ..  A few years ago, Plaintiff Fred Thompson was fired from his job as a construction site supervisor.    Mr. Thompson was working on a project for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (“WMATA”) when a serious safety violation occurred on his watch.    Mr. Thompson’s employer, HICAPS Inc. (“HICAPS”), was a subcontractor to Motorola Solutions (“MSI”), the project’s prime contractor.    According to Mr. Thompson, an African American male, he was fired because of his race.    He brings this three-count action for:    (1) violation of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act;    (2) tortious interference with employment contract/relationship;    and (3) violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Sep 20,  .. 11th Cir:    Sugg v City of Sunrise  ..  The City of Sunrise employed Sugg as the Chief Electrical Inspector.    The Chief Electrical Inspector for the City of Sunrise works within the Build- ing Department of the City of Sunrise’s Community Development Department (the “Department”).    The Director of Community De- velopment runs the Department and oversees its employees. But the direct supervisor of the Chief Electrical Inspector is the head of the Building Department within the larger Department, who is known by the title, Building Official.    In October 2014, about five months into the probationary period, Sugg suffered a heart attack.    He was hospitalized for four days and was on leave for two weeks following his discharge. Two days into his recovery, Sugg’s name was no longer listed on the website under the title of Chief Electrical Inspector.    And sometime during his recovery, Sugg was decertified as a Chief Elec-trical Inspector.    Upon his return to work, Sugg “noticed that management was treating him differently.” Sugg testified that Steve Busick, a City Plans Examiner and Inspector, told him he “better watch [his] back” and “they’re after you.” .... continued  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Sep 20,  .. 7th Cir.:    West v. Radtke  ..  Rufus West is confined at Wisconsin’s Green Bay Correctional Institution where he must undergo strip searches by prison staff on regular occasions—namely, when he leaves and reenters the prison, during lockdowns, before and after visits from outsiders and certain other movements within the facility, and whenever directed by a prison supervisor.    Under prison policy two guards partici- pate in every strip search, one who directly performs it and another who observes to ensure that it is performed properly.    West is a Muslim. Strip searches by prison guards of the opposite sex violate the moral tenets of his faith, which prohibit him from exposing his body to a woman who is not his wife.    In July 2016 he was required to submit to a strip search by a guard who is a transgender man—a woman who identifies as a man. West objected on religious grounds but was refused an accommodation, and the transgender guard participated in the strip search as the observing officer.    After this incident, West requested an exemption from future cross-sex strip searches.    The warden denied the request and told West that he would be disciplined if he objects again.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

September 16 Birthdays :   Miriam Benjamin  *  B.B. King  *  Elgin Baylor  *  Billy Boy Arnold  *  Betty Kelly  *  Toks Olagundoye  *  Kyla Pratt  *  Earl Klugh  *  Michael James Shaw  *  Danny John-Jules  *  Henry Louis Gates Jr.  *  Musiq Soulchild          Nancy Huston  *  Jennifer Tilly  *  Molly Shannon  *  Katy Kurtzman  *  Amy Poehler  *  Sabrina Bryan  *  Trisha Yearwood  *  Lauren Bacall  *  Clara Ayres  *  Janis Paige  *  Patricia Wald  *  Anne Francis  *  Alexis Bledel  *  Madeline Zima  *  Elena Kampouris  *  Jane Brook  *  Amy Price-Francis  *  Sarah Steele  *  Linda Henning  *  Fan Bingbing  *  Susan L. Graham  *  Michelle Lombardo  *  Susan Ruttan  *  Linda Kaye Henning  *  Rossy de Palma  *  Betty Kelly  *  Susan Ruttan          James Cash Penney (j. c. penney)  *  Jacob Schick (razor)  *  Albert Szent-Györgyi  *  H. A. Rey (curious george)  *  Allen Funt  *  Bill Daley  *  Andy Russell  *  Charlie Byrd  *  Peter Falk  *  Ed Begley Jr.  *  Mickey Rourke  *  Orel Hershiser  *  Richard Marx  *  Rex Trailer  *  Carl Andre  *  Dr. Robert Schuller  *  Bill McGill  *  Hamiet Bluiett  *  Joe Butler  *  Sonny LeMaire  *  David Bellamy  *  Kurt Fuller  *  Christopher Rich  *  Nick Jonas  *  David Copperfield  *  Dave Schulthise  *  Victory Tischler-Blue  *  Graham Haynes  *  John Bel Edwards  *  Kevin Young  *  Marc Anthony  *  Morgan Woodward  *  George Chakiris  *  Joaquin Castro  *  Julian Castro  *  Brian Sims  *  Alexis Bledel    - - - - -    September 16 Deaths :   Willie "Big Eyes" Smith  *  Norman Whitfield (motown)  *  Jane Powell  *  Mary Travers  *  Patsy Swayze  *  Fred Quimby  *  Richard Brautigan  *  James Gregory  *   *  Sheb Wooley  *  Edward Albee  *  Gérard Louis-Dreyfus    - - - - -    September 16 Events :   1908 – The General Motors Corporation is founded.  *  1955 – The military coup to unseat President Juan Perón of Argentina is launched.  *  2013 – A gunman kills twelve people at the Washington Navy Yard.  *  1997 - Steves Jobs named Apple Computer CEO  *  1848 - France abolished Slavery in all French territories.

♦       Sep 16,  .. FLRA:  AFGE v. Department of Labor  ..  The Union filed a petition for review (petition) concerning two proposals.    The proposals require the Agency to assign workers’ compensation claims to employees based on geographical considerations. Because the Agency has demonstrated that the proposals are outside the duty to bargain, we dismiss the petition.    In its statement, the Agency asserts that the Union’s petition raises “a bargaining[‑]obligation dispute, which cannot be addressed in the negotiability appeal procedure.” [2] Where a proposal raises both a negotiability dispute and a bargaining‑obligation dispute, the Authority may resolve both disputes in a negotiability case. [3] However, a petition “that concerns only a bargaining[-]obligation dispute may not be resolved [in a negotiability proceeding].” [4] Here, the Agency argues, among other things, that the proposals conflict with management rights under § 7106 of the Federal Service Labor‑Management Relations Statute (the Statute). ... CONTINUED  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.html)

♦       Sep 16,  .. D.D.C.:    Harrington v. Halpern  ..  During the time period involved in this case, James Harrington, who describes himself as “White, Caucasian,” has been employed in the Press Division of the GPO.    On February 25, 2019, plaintiff James Harrington brought this six-count action against the Government Publishing Office (“GPO”) under he Civil Rights Act of 1964.    The case arises out of plaintiff’s employment at the GPO between 2014 and 2016. In Counts I and II, he alleged that he was subjected to a hostile work environment based on his race and prior EEO activity.    In Counts III through VI, plaintiff alleged that his supervisors took actions against him in retaliation for his protected activities.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Sep 16,  .. OCA:    Nadrowski v. Cleveland  ..  In May 2018, Nadrowski and her friends attended a flea market (“the Flea”) on E. 36th Street in Cleveland. Upon exiting the Flea, Nadrowski found herself in a large crowd of pedestrians of approximately 40-50 people, walking two- by-two.    Nadrowski was less than an “arm’s length” away from the person directly in front of her. She was so close that she could only see the back of that person’s head. She was not able to see the street in front of her. The crowd exited at an angle across the street.    As Nadrowski crossed the street, her feet hit what she initially thought was a “curb, and [she] went down on [her] knees, [her] hands and then [her] whole body.”    She later determined that her feet caught an uneven area of the street that had a difference in elevation of two inches or more. Nadrowski does not know the exact area of her fall. She recalled that the area was in proximity to a fire hydrant and several orange pipes. Nadrowski took photos of the area in October 2018, which depict a greater than two-inch defect in the street.    In May 2020, Nadrowski filed a complaint against the City, along with other defendants, who are no longer involved in the lawsuit. Nadrowski alleged negligence against the City for failing to maintain a public roadway.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Sep 16,  .. (3rd Cir.:    Canada v. Grossi  ..  Canada alleges that he was subject to discrimination and a hostile work environment at Grossi based on his being a Black man.       In a deposition, Canada testified that between March 2018 and July 2019, various co-workers and superiors used the word “nigger” in the workplace.       He testified that his co-worker called him nigger twice.       (explaining that in March 2018, his co-worker called him a “fucking nigger” after he accidently knocked over the co-worker’s radio, and then in February 2019, he called him it a second time).       In fact, when Canada complained to Osorio about this co-worker, Osorio expressed that she saw no issue.       Specifically, Canada testified that she told him that she and her sister “dated black guys and [have] said, ‘nigger’ before.”       Ultimately, Canada filed his Second Amended Civil Action Complaint in November 2019. He alleged race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964       After Canada filed his Second Amended Civil Action Complaint, one of the company’s owners, approached him and threatened that if he did not drop the lawsuit, “I’ll just have other African-American employees say the opposite of what you’re saying.”       Canada was terminated a month later, in July 2019.       Grossi based the termination on text messages that management found on Canada’s cellphone.       The incident that led to the discovery of these text messages is at the heart of this appeal.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

September 15 Birthdays :   Cannonball Adderley  *  Jessye Norman  *  Bobby Short  *  Nipsey Russell  *  Claude McKay  *  George Franklin Grant  *  Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie  *  Barry Shabaka Henley  *  Conlin McFarlane         Anna Winlock  *  Sheilah Graham Westbrook  *  Agatha Christie  *  Fay Wray  *  Chelsea Kane  *  Marisa Ramirez  *  Chelsea Quinn Yarbro  *  Ramya Krishnan  *  Caterina Murino  *  Heidi Montag  *  Rebecca Miller  *  Diane E. Levin  *  Wendie Jo Sperber  *  Blu del Barrio  *  Penny Singleton  *  James Fenimore Cooper  *  William Howard Taft  *  Roy Acuff  *  Kid Sheik  *  Princ Harry  *  John N. Mitchell  *  Henry Silva  *  Robert McCloskey  *  Jimmy Carr  *  Tommy Lee Jones  *  Henry Darrow  *  Jackie Cooper  *  Ron Shelton  *  Norm Crosby  *  Oliver Stone  *  Dick Latessa  *  Tomie dePaola  *  Bruno Walter  *  King Curtis Iaukea  *  Robert Lucas Jr  *  Gaylord Perry  *  Merlin Olsen  *  Rajiv Malhotra  *  Dan Marino  *  Ben Schwartz  *  Cyhi the Prynce  *  George Watsky  *  Jae Park    - - - - -    September 15 Deaths :   Thomas Wolfe  *  Steve Brown  *  Bill Evans  *  Cootie Williams  *  Robert Penn Warren  *  June Salter  *  Garner Ted Armstrong  *  Pablo Santos  *  Frances Bay  *  Jerry G. Bishop  *  Harry Dean Stanton  *  Ric Ocasek    - - - - -    September 15 Events :   1963 – Birmingham Baptist Church bombing : Four African-American girls killed (Cynthia Wesley 14, Carole Robertson 14, Addie Mae Collins 14, Denise McNair 11)  *  1954 – Marilyn Monroe 's iconic skirt scene is shot during filming for The Seven Year Itch

OPM WEBSITE   ♦ OPM Coronavirus Guidance   ♦ Guidance And Notifications FOR FEDS Performance Management Tips for a Hybrid Workplace.

♦       Sep 15,  .. FDCA:    Seaway Biltmore v. Grace Abuchaibe  ..  Grace Abuchaibe was a reservations agent at the Biltmore from 2005 through 2011.    In 2011, she was fired and filed a complaint with the EEOC for age-based discrimination and retaliation. In March 2012, the parties signed a negotiated settlement agreement (“NSA”) resolving all of the claims.    The NSA required the Biltmore to reinstate her to her former position, provide her with access to training, among other things, and also contained an anti-retaliation clause.    In 2015, Respondent allegedly committed misconduct by engaging in a public argument with the Biltmore’s chief information officer about an issue she was having with her computer. Citing prior episodes of misconduct, the Biltmore terminated her.    The Respondent then filed a two-count complaint against the Petitioners.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Sep 15,  .. FLRA:  AFGE v. VA  ..  After selecting Arbitrator Joseph V. Simeri to resolve a Union grievance, the parties failed to schedule a hearing within the time frame required by their collective‑bargaining agreement.    Following the contractual deadline’s expiration, the Agency requested that the Arbitrator dismiss the grievance.    The Arbitrator scheduled a conference call with the parties, but the Union failed to participate.    Subsequently, the Arbitrator issued an award dismissing the grievance on procedural‑arbitrability grounds. The Union filed exceptions to the award.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Sep 15,  .. FLRA:  AFGE v. DOL  ..  The Union requested mid-term bargaining and offered two proposals concerning the processing of workers’ compensation claims filed by the Agency’s own employees. The Agency provided the Union with a written allegation of nonnegotiability. Subsequently, the Union filed its petition with the Authority.    An Authority representative conducted a post‑petition conference (conference) and issued a written record of that conference pursuant to § 2424.23 of the Authority’s Regulations. [1] The Agency filed a statement of position (statement), to which the Union filed a response (response), and the Agency filed a reply (reply) to the Union’s response.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Sep 15,  .. 6th Cir.:    Robinson v. Quicken Loans  ..  In October of 2014, Ms. Robinson began her employment with Defendant Quicken Loans as an intern. Quicken Loans designed its internship program to be a stepping-stone into regular placement within the organization. The company therefore encouraged its interns, including [Robinson], to explore different departments and roles during their internship so they could identify the full-time positions they were interested in joining upon graduation.    Consistent with this program, [Robinson] spent her internship working as an executive administrative assistant but was given flexibility to shadow those working in several other roles.    She determined the business analyst role “was the one that [she] was being pulled to most” and joined Quicken Loans full time as a business analyst in May of 2015.    Despite the initial positive relationship, tensions quickly rose between the two once [Robinson] joined Web Core.    Robinson testified that Schiefer told her she was opposed to allowing [Robinson] to join her team and reported her displeasure to the director when she found out about [Robinson]’s transfer.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

September 14 Birthdays :   Constance Baker Motley  *  Nas  *  Joseph Jarman  *  Robert Wisdom  *  Shannon Kane  *  Katie Lee  *  Julia Platt  *  Margaret Sanger  *  Kay Medford  *  Alice Tully  *  Frances Bergen  *  Cher Wang  *  Joey Heatherton  *  Carmen Kass  *  Michelle Stafford  *  Geraldine Brooks  *  Melissa Leo  *  Wendy Thomas  *  Faith Ford  *  Oliver Stone  *  Clayton Moore (lone ranger)  *  Jesse James  *  Archie Hahn  *  William H. Armstrong  *  Clayton Moore  *  Sam Neil  *  John Dobson  *  Cachao López  *  Andrew Lincoln  *  Paul Poberezny  *  Walter Koenig (star trek)  *  Harve Presnell  *  Larry Brown  *  Oliver Lake  *  John Steptoe  *  Barry Cowsill  *  Steve Berlin  *  John Berry    - - - - -    September 14 Deaths :   LaWanda Page (aunt esther)  *  John Harvard  *  Grace Kelly  *  Janet Gaynor  *  Patrick Swayze  *  Norm Macdonald  *  Aaron Burr  *  William Seward Burroughs  *  President William McKinley  *  Isadora Duncan  *  Wayne Morris  *  Henry Gibson  *  Jody Powell  *  Tony Auth  *  Fred DeLuca  *  Ethel Johnson    - - - - -    September 14 Events :   1985 - The Golden Girls TV show debuted  *  1969 - Scooby-Doo Where are You debuts  *  1901 - President William McKinley died after being shot  *  1814 - Francis Scott Key wrote Star Spangled Banner

September 13 Birthdays :   Alberta Williams King (mlk)  *  Ray Charles  *  Joni Sledge (ss)  *  Charles Brown  *  Alain Loche  *  Iyanla Vanzant  *  Nell Carter  *  Tyler Perry  *  Tavis Smiley  *  Michael Johnson  *  Claudette Colbert  *  Fiona Apple  *  Jean Smart  *   *  Judith (Mis Manners) Martin  *  Jacqueline Bisset  *  Barbara Bain  *  Arleen Auger  *  Eileen Fulton  *  Molly Crabapple  *  Annie Duke  *  Gladys George  *  Reta Shaw  *  Mae Questel  *  Lucy Goode Brooks  *  Walter Reed  *  Milton S. Hershey (candy)  *  John J. Pershing  *  J B Priestley  *  Larry Shields  *  Chu Berry  *  Bill Monroe  *  Mel Tormé  *  Don Bluth  *  Randy Jones  *  Don Was  *  Keith Black  *  Jeff Ross  *  Swizz Beat    - - - - -    September 13 Deaths :   Tupac Shakur  *  Moses Malone  *  Ann Richards  *  Mary Brewster Hazelton  *  Betty Field  *  Dorothy McGuire  *  Joe Pasternak  *  George Wallace  *  Paul Burke  *  Pete Domenici  *  Eddie Money  *  Jean-Luc Godard    - - - - -    September 13 Events :   1990 - Law and Order debuted  *  1971 - Revolt at Attica Prison (29 inmates killed)

OPM WEBSITE   ♦ OPM Coronavirus Guidance   ♦ Guidance And Notifications FOR FEDS Performance Management Tips for a Hybrid Workplace.

♦       Sep 14,  .. CCA:    Johar v. CUIAB  ..  Briefly stated, the facts are these. With the agreement of her supervisor, Reena Johar, a home improvement salesperson, left work to care for a terminally ill relative, and while she was away her employer decided she had quit.    She was gone about a week. Upon her return, the employer told her business was slow and gave her no new sales appointments.    Johar eventually made a claim for unemployment benefits with the Employment Development Department (EDD), telling the EDD she lost her job due to a “temporary layoff.” The employer denied laying Johar off.    While conceding that she left with her supervisor’s approval, the employer advised the EDD that Johar’s failure to provide a return date or otherwise communicate with her supervisor while she was away amounted to a voluntary quit. The EDD accepted the employer’s position, found Johar ineligible for unemployment benefits, ordered reimbursement of benefits improperly paid, and imposed a penalty for willful misrepresentation in seeking benefits. An administrative law judge (ALJ) sustained the EDD’s ruling, and the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (CUIAB) affirmed, finding that “Basically, [Johar] abandoned her job.”    This appeal followed.    ...    ...    ... We will reverse.       We conclude Johar was entitled to mandate relief on the existing administrative record.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Sep 14,  .. 7th Cir.:    Downing v. Abbott Laboratories  ..  Jacinta Downing worked for many years as a sales manager and then a sales executive at Abbott Molecular, Inc. Over time, that company faced financial difficulties.    The company said that because of reductions in its sales force and Downing’s work performance, it ended her employment.    Downing claims the company racially discriminated and retaliated against her, so she sued.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Sep 14,  .. D.D.C.:    Azzam v. District of Columbia  ..  Plaintiff Amal Azzam is a civil engineer employed by the District of Columbia Department of Transportation (DDOT)    She alleges that her employer denied her promotion opportunities based on her gender, religion, race, national origin, and age, and that it retaliated against her for complaining about the alleged discrimination.    Defendant, the District of Columbia, has moved to dismiss most of her claims, arguing that she failed to timely serve the District and that she otherwise fails to state a valid claim for gender, religion, race, and national origin discrimination.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Sep 14,  .. D.D.C.:    Craig v. Not for Profit Hospital Corp  ..  Dr. Craig became the Chief Medical Officer of the Not-for-Profit Hospital Corporation (“the Hospital”), a District of Columbia government hospital that is commonly known as the United Medical Center.    The year after he assumed his role, the Hospital hired a management company, Veritas of Washington, LLC (“Veritas”), to run its operations. With Veritas at the helm, Craig’s hours were slashed by a third, and his compensation was likewise reduced.    Craig developed concerns that the Hospital was trying to improve its financial situation by pressuring its employees to improperly increase patient admissions so that it could submit claims for reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid.    Craig filed an official complaint with the Hospital. He also reported Veritas’s mismanagement and malfeasance to the D.C. Council, which led to his public testimony about the Hospital’s problems.    Two weeks after his testimony, the Hospital terminated his employment.    Craig sued the Hospital, Veritas, and officers of Veritas, bringing claims of retaliation; whistleblower discrimination; wrongful discharge; breach of contract; violation of .., Wage Payment; and defamation.    He seeks a declaratory judgment, as well as compensatory, liquidated, and punitive damages.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)


September 9 Birthdays :   Otis Redding  *  Elvin Jones  *  Inez Foxx  *  Dee Dee Sharp  *  Nathan Lee Graham  *  Lee Grevioux  *  Mary Hunter Austin  *  Phyllis A. Whitney  *  Sonia Sanchez  *  Angela Cartwright (lis)  *  Lauren Daigle  *  Nikki DeLoach  *  Zoe Kazan  *  Margaret Tyzack  *  Alexandra Powers  *  Michelle Williams  *  Michelle Johnson  *  Julie Gonzalo  *  Kelsey Asbille  *  Kimberly Willis Holt  *  Ida Mae Martinez  *  Jane Greer  *  Sylvia Miles  *  Louise Abeita  *  Constance Marie  *  Colonel Sanders (kfc)  *  Leo Tolstoy  *  Alf Landon  *  Henry Thomas (et)  *  Joseph E. Levine  *  Yang Yang  *  Cliff Robertson  *  Eric Stonestreet  *  Shane Battier  *  Topol  *  Michael Buble  *  John Kricfalusi  *  Sol LeWitt  *  Hugh Grant  *  II-Woo Jung  *  Joe Negroni  *  T. M. Wright  *  Joe Theismann  *  Tom Wopat  *  Tom Foley  *  Akshay Kumar  *  Neil Hamilton (batman)  *  Chris Coons  *  Adam Sandler  *  B. J. Armstrong  *  Martin Johnson    - - - - -    September 9 Deaths :   Catfish Hunter  *  Ruth Roman  *  Albert Spalding  *  Bill Monroe  *  Burgess Meredith  *  Ernie Ball  *  Caitlin Clarke  *  William Bernard Ziff Jr.

September 8 Birthdays :   Ruby Bridges  *  Guitar Shorty  *  Latrell Sprewell  *  Big Boy  *  Maurice Cheeks  *  Wiz Khalifa  *  Larenz Tate  *  Slim Thug  *  Deja Kelley  *  Patsy Cline  *  Chantal Jones  *  Pink  *  Kimberly Peirce  *  Marianne Wiggins  *  Dianne Doan  *  Ann Beattie  *  Tatyana Joseph  *  Asha Bhosle  *  Jimmie Rodgers  *  Chumlee  *  Jonathan Taylor Thomas  *  David Arquette  *  GatenMatarazzo  *  Gabrial McNair  *  Michael Johns  *  David Carr  *  Will Lee  *  Bernie Sanders  *  Marion Brown  *  Peter Sellers  *  Sid Caesar  *  Lyndon LaRouche    - - - - -    September 8 Deaths :   Dorothy Dandridge  *  Roy Wilkins  *  Maurice Wilks  *  Gerald Wilson  *  Frank Thomas  *  Moondog  *  Zero Mostel  *  Bud Collyer

September 7 Birthdays :   Jacob Lawrence  *  Sonny Rollins  *  Little Milton  *  Latimore  *  Eazy-E  *  Leslie Jones  *  Jonathan Majors  *  Jodie Turner-Smith  *  Colin Lawrence  *  LeRoi Moore  *  Jermaine Stewart  *  Radhika Apte  *  Alyssa Diaz  *  Diane Farr  *  Susan Blakley  *  Angie Everhart  *  Chrissie Hynde  *  Jennifer Egan  *  Diane Warren  *  Willie Crawford  *  Peggy Noonan  *  Julie Kavner  *  Gloria Gaynor  *  Evan Rachel Wood  *  Laura Ashley  *  Grandma Moses  *  Elinor Wylie  *  Shane Mosley  *  Michael Feinstein  *  Corbin Bernsen  *  John Paul Getty Jr.  *  Kevin Love  *  Samuel Goldwyn Jr.  *  Peter Lawford  *  Buddy Holly  *  Radhika Apte  *  Andre Dirrell  *  David Packard  *  Elia Kazan  *  Paul Brown  *  Taylor Caldwell  *  J. P. Morgan Jr.  *  Ian Chen  *  Anthony Quale  *  John Milford  *  Michael Emmerson    - - - - -    September 7 Deaths :   Everett Dirksen  *  Mac Miller  *  Dickie Moore  *  Barbara Holland  *  Keith Moon

September 6 Birthdays :   Buddy Bolden  *  Sylvester  *  Idris Elba  *  Michael Winslow  *  Chad L. Coleman  *  Trina McGee  *  Foxy Brown  *  CeCe Peniston  *  Anika Noni Rose  *  Macy Gray  *  Rosie Perez  *  Deborah Joy Winans  *  Tamron Hall  *  Naomi Harris  *  Shirley M. Malcom  *  Elizabeth Vargas  *  Carly Fiorina  *  Jane Curtin  *  Swoosie Kurtz  *  Donna Haraway  *  Elizabeth Murray  *  Jo Anne Worley  *  Jane Addams  *  Katherine Harris  *  Pippa Middleton  *  Carol Wayne  *  Lauren Lapkus  *  Kim So-eun  *  John Wall  *  Cisco Adler  *  Tony DiTerlizzi  *  Mark Chesnutt  *  Chris Christie  *  Scott Travis  *  Jeff Foxworthy  *  Naveen Jain  *  Bill Ritter  *  Delores O'Riordan  *  David Allan Coe  *  Jimmy Reed  *  Joseph P. Kennedy Sr  *  Jessie Willcox Smith  *  Marquis de Lafayette  *  Lil Xan  *  Red Faber  *     - - - - -    September 6 Deaths :   Michael K. Williams  *  Robert Mugabe  *  Burt Reynolds  *  Margaret Sanger  *  Gertrude Lawrence  *  Will Jordan  *  Richard DeVos  *  Kate Millett  *  Martin Milner  *  Art Modell  *  Michael S. Hart  *  Anita Page  *  Luciano Pavarotti  *  Max Kaminsky  *  Tom Fogerty  *  Ernest Tubb    - - - - -    September 6 Events :   1901 - President William McKinley was shot ans killed.  *  2019 - Zimbaber President Bobert Mugabe died.  *  1916 - First Piggly Wiggly supermarket opened.

September 2 Birthdays :   Romare Bearden  *  Katt Williams  *  Billy Preston  *  Joe Simon  *  Walter Davis, Jr.  *  Clifford Jordan  *  Nate Archibald  *  Eric Dickerson  *  Brian Westbrook  *  Rich Boy  *  K-Ci  *  Damon Idris  *   *  Nicholas Pinnock  *  Joshua Henry  *  Markieff Morris  *  Marcus Morris  *  Syleena Johnson  *  Shayla Worley  *  Jennifer Hopkins  *  Cynthia Watros  *  Salma Hayek  *  Rosanna DeSoto  *  Tiffany Hines  *  Christa McAuliffe  *  Rosalind Ashford  *  Linda Purl  *  Martha Mitchell  *  Cynthia Watros  *  Allison Miller  *  Mary Jo Catlett  *  Sandra Knight  *  Camille Grammer  *  Adrienne Marden  *  Shauna Sand  *  MC Chris  *  Keanu Reeves  *  Alan K. Simpson Sudeep  *  Horace Silver  *  Terry Bradshaw  *  Jimmy Connors  *  Mark Harmon  *  John Zorn  *  Jim DeMint  *  Pawan Kalyan  *  Jimmy Clanton  *  Grady Nutt  *  Chuck McCann  *  Sam Gooden  *  Roberto Urbina  *  Albert Spalding  *  Henry George    - - - - -    September 2 Deaths :   J. R. R. Tolkien  *  Claire Wineland  *  Dewey Redman  *  Bob Mathias  *  Bob Denver  *  Troy Donahue  *  Barbara McClintock  *  Fred G. Meyer  *  Mabel Vernon    - - - - -    September 2 Events :   1945 - Ho Chi Minh declared Vietnam independent from France

OPM WEBSITE   ♦ OPM Coronavirus Guidance   ♦ Guidance And Notifications FOR FEDS Performance Management Tips for a Hybrid Workplace.

♦       Sep 2,  .. 3rd Cir.:    Bailey v. Millenium Group  ..  Bailey was hired by the Millennium Group to work as a Stock Associate in Princeton, New Jersey.    He was fired for a purported breach of security after he opened a locked door and allowed access to an individual who had herself been fired earlier that day.    Bailey brought this action against Millennium alleging that he had in fact been terminated because he is African American.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Sep 2,  .. 11th Cir.:    Reyes v. FedEx  ..  Reyes, who identifies as a “White Hispanic” male, worked for FedEx for about 22 years prior to his termination. At the time of his termination, Reyes operated out of FedEx’s airport ramp location in Orlando, Florida, holding the title of Ramp Transport Driver (RTD).    Reyes’s immediate supervisor was Keith Burns (White), Operations Manager, and Burns reported to Kevin Pigue (Black), Senior Manager, and Pigue reported to Maurice Settles (Black), Managing Director – South Coast District. Jeremy Coleman (White) was the Human Resources Advisor.    The racial makeup of Reyes’s workgroup, which Burns supervised, was approximately 60% Hispanic, 30% White, and 10% Black.    FedEx discharged Reyes from his position on February 1, 2016, via a termination letter.    The letter stated that Reyes was terminated because an investigation revealed that he falsified his timecard on January 14, 2016, falsified statements about the investigation into the timecard falsification, and rode while unauthorized in a company vehicle with another employee.    At some point in 2015, Reyes was subjected to a harangue of racially insensitive remarks targeting people of Hispanic descent from another RTD, JoAnn McCoy (Black). Specifically, McCoy directed the following offensive insults toward Reyes: “spics,” “you guys [are] just always eating your Spanish rice,” “boyo,” and “Spanish faggot.” ... CONTINUED  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Sep 2,  .. FLRA:  BMTC v Navy  ..  In August 2020, the Agency proposed suspending the grievant for one day. The parties resolved that matter by executing an abeyance agreement. The abeyance agreement “placed the [grievant’s one]-day suspension . . . in abeyance for a period of [two] years . . . to allow [the grievant] the opportunity to demonstrate acceptable attendance, conduct[,] and performance; and to refrain from any further disciplinary offenses.”    The abeyance agreement provides that if the grievant “violate[s] any of the [Agency’s] attendance, conduct[,] or performance rules or expectations at any time during” the agreement’s duration, such action “will be in direct violation of th[e] agreement.”    It further provides that the failure to comply with any of its conditions “will result in the [Agency] effecting [the one-day suspension based on the August 2020 charge without an additional notice period.”    Subsequently, the Agency proposed discipline against the grievant based on incidents in March and April 2021. The grievant agreed to settle by accepting a suspension for those incidents.    Based on those incidents, the Agency concluded that the grievant also violated the abeyance agreement.    Therefore, the Agency imposed the one-day suspension that had been held in abeyance since 2020, without giving the grievant an additional notice period prior to imposing discipline.    The Union grieved. ... CONTINUED  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Sep 2,  .. FLRA:  ARMY v AFGE  ..  The grievant worked as a General Schedule (GS) grade 4 Security Guard at the Agency’s Redstone Arsenal facility monitoring access control points and gates.    While in this position, the grievant’s supervisor began assigning the grievant POC duties. POC duties include being the person in charge at a particular gate, controlling access to vehicles entering the facility, inventorying equipment, unlocking the gates, setting up barricades, and other administrative functions.    There is no job description for serving as POC; there is simply a list of employees who perform those duties. After the grievant began regularly performing POC duties, the grievant asked his supervisor “if he could be taken off the POC list[] because he was still getting Security Guard’s pay.”    The supervisor told the grievant that serving as a POC would look good on a resume if he were to apply for future promotions. The grievant voluntarily continued to perform POC duties.    In December 2017, the grievant filed a third-step grievance alleging the Agency had violated Articles 9 (“Rights and Obligations”) and 32 (“Merit Promotion”) of the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement and that the grievant “was treated unfair[ly] when he [was] continuously working as a Lead Guard [POC] GS[-]6 position from January 2015 to present, but no[t] . . . compensated.”    The grievance requested “reimbursement as a GS-6 from January 2015 to present” and “permanent [ppromotion to a GS-6.”    The Agency denied the grievance because the grievant volunteered for additional responsibilities that the Agency alleged were within the scope of his existing position’s duties. The matter proceeded to arbitration.  ..  FLRA DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Sep 2,  .. CAT:    Texas Tech v. Flores  ..  Flores was born in 1956 and began working at Texas Tech in 1993 as a temporary medical secretary when Texas Tech was still a regional campus of the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center School of Medicine in Lubbock.    Flores held several subsequent positions— assistant to the family medicine department chair, coordinator in the pediatrics department for the department chair, executive associate in the dean’s office—before becoming a director in the dean’s office in 2007 under Dr. Manuel De La Rosa when Texas Tech became a four-year medical school.    In that position, Flores took on a considerable amount of responsibility, worked long hours, and performed well in her job. In 2013, Texas Tech became a stand-alone university within the larger Tech system. Flores’ best job evaluations as a director were issued after Dr. Lange became the Texas Tech president in July 2014.    From July 2014 until May 2015, Flores retained her director position under Lange, assisting both him and De La Rosa, including supporting De La Rosa in his new capacity as provost effective November 2014.    In May 2015, Lange informed Flores her job title was going to change, her salary was going to be reduced, and she was going to be working exclusively with De La Rosa. ... CONTINUED  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

August 31 Birthdays :   Eldridge Cleaver  *  Edwin Moses  *  Wilton Felder + songs  *  Bobby Parker  *  Chris Tucker  *  Frank Robinson  *  Ray Dandridge  *  Stephen McKinley Henderson  *  John Eric Bentley  *  Rolando  *  Shar Jackson  *  Debbie Gibson  *  Melissa Prophet  *  Jolene Watanabe  *  Maria Montessori + shools  *  Julie Brown  *  Carole Wells  *  Marcia Clark  *  Argentina Bruntti  *  Josephine St. Pierre Ruffin  *  Sara Ramirez  *  Joe Budden  *  Caligula  *  Richard Gere  *  G.D. Spradlin  *  Mark Walberg  *  Itzhak Perlman  *  Van Morrison  *  Rajkummar Rao  *  William DeWitt  *  Ernie Shavers  *  Dee Bradley Baker  *  Jerry Allison  *  Big Tiny Little  *  Jaime Gomez  *  James Coburn  *  Buddy Hackett  *  John Davidson  *  Warren Berlinger  *  Joshua Close  *  Alan Jay Lerner  *  Richard Basehart  *  Arthur Godfrey  *  Fredric March    - - - - -    August 31 Deaths :   Diana, Princess of Wales  *  Lionel Hampton  *  John Ford  *  Rocky Marciano  *  David Frost  *  Tom Seaver  *  Mahal  *  Stan Goldberg  *  Ike Pappas  *  Dolores Moore  *  Sally Rand  *  Elsa Barker    - - - - -    August 31 Events :    *   *   * 

♦       Aug 31,  .. CCA:    Doe v. White  ..  Jane Accuses John Of Sexual Misconduct       Jane filed a complaint alleging that John had engaged in sexual intercourse with her without her affirmative consent.    Jane told the investigator that she took an Uber to a bar crawl in downtown San Luis Obispo around 7:00 a.m. on March 17, 2018.    Before leaving she took medication and drank four or five shots of vodka mixed with cranberry juice.    She recalled arriving downtown, but then blacked out. She went home about 30 minutes later.    Later that morning, John knocked on the door to Jane’s apartment. Jane drank two shots of vodka and a beer with John. She then blacked out again.    Jane woke up around 5:00 a.m. the next day. She had cuts on her face and bruises on her neck.    She had vaginal pain and was not wearing underwear. She sent text messages to her mother and a friend, M.K., describing what she remembered from the previous day.    She also sent them pictures of her injuries.       John Denies Jane’s Allegations       John, accompanied by an attorney advisor, met with the investigator in November.    At the meeting, John said that he would only make a statement and would not answer any questions.    John denied that he had sexual intercourse with Jane without her consent and denied that he bruised her face and neck.    He said that he went to Jane’s apartment at approximately 11:15 a.m. on March 17.    When Jane opened the door, she had a bloody nose and cut lip.    She said someone had hit her at the bar crawl she had attended earlier that morning.    ... CONTINUED  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Aug 31,  .. MSC:    Timpano v. Central MT HRD  ..  HRDC employed Timpano full time in Lewistown, Montana, for approximately 20 years, most recently as a full-time Program Manager at the annual salary of $42,265.60, plus fringe benefits.    Timpano holds a bachelor’s degree in elementary education and during her HRDC tenure also regularly performed various part-time support functions in her husband’s retail gun business, usually on weeknights and weekends, for which she received no employment income.    Her gun shop functions included, inter alia, performing various record and bookkeeping tasks and assisting her husband with out-of-town weekend gun shows approximately 15 weekends per year.    On June 30, 2017, HRDC discharged Timpano from employment, on the apparent ground of perceived unsatisfactory performance, despite the fact that it gave her satisfactory ratings on her most recent written performance appraisal dated May 15, 2017, for the period of April 2016 through April 2017.1 She was almost 65 years old at the time of the unexpected discharge. ... CONTINUED  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Aug 31,  .. 5th Cir.:    Lopez v. Cintas  ..  Cintas Corporation processes, distributes, and delivers work uniforms and other facility-services products to clients nationwide. Cintas hired Douglas Lopez in early 2019. In the hiring process, Lopez checked a box on a voluntary self-identification form indicating that he has (or previously had) a disability.    His job duties included picking up items from a Houston warehouse and delivering them to local clients. Those items arrived at the warehouse from out of state. Lopez signed an employment contract which included an arbitration agreement.    The agreement covered “all of [Lopez]’s rights or claims arising out of or in any way related to [Lopez]’s employment with [Cintas],” including claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The agreement also conspicuously stated (in bold, all-caps typeface) that the agreement was governed by the Federal Arbitration Act.    And it delegated to the arbitrator the “authority to resolve any dispute relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability or formation of this Agreement including, but not limited to, any claim that all or any part of this Agreement is void or voidable.” Cintas fired Lopez a few months after he started.    Lopez then sued in state court, arguing that Cintas violated his rights under the ADA. Cintas removed the case to federal court and then moved to either stay the claims pending arbitration or to dismiss them entirely. Cintas contended that Lopez’s employment contract included a binding arbitration agreement, so arbitration was the only forum for his claims.    Lopez argued that the arbitration agreement was substantively and procedurally unconscionable because Lopez had an intellectual disability and because the agreement was grossly one-sided and unfair.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)

♦       Aug 31,  .. PSC:    Gleason v. Dupont Hosp  ..  Mr. Gleason was employed as an MRI Field Service Technician by Medical Imaging Group “MIG”).    While Mr. Gleason was performing maintenance on an MRI machine at Dupont Hospital, a fire and explosion occurred in the main distribution panel.    Mr. Gleason’s hair, skin and clothing caught fire and he suffered severe burns, scarring, disfigurement and temporary blindness.    The Gleasons filed two actions against various defendants alleging negligence and loss of consortium.  ..  COURT DECISION:   (.html)   (.pdf)



PERMERICA.COM


contactUS