Legal Briefs: Penalty of humiliation

Every Friday on GovExec.com, Legal Briefs reviews several cases that involve, or provide valuable lessons to, federal managers. We report on the decisions of a wide range of review panels, including the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Federal Labor Relations Authority and federal courts.

The warden at the U.S. penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kan., was not a big fan of the local union, and he made sure union officials knew it. The warden made threatening, anti-union statements at a mandatory meeting of all employees at the prison and continually threatened to take adverse actions against the president and vice president of the union.

Unfortunately for the warden, his mouthing off constituted an unfair labor practice, according to the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Because the warden liked to flap his lips so much, the authority decided that an appropriate punishment would be to make the warden call a meeting of all employees, at which the warden (or someone else, as long as the warden was present) would read a statement promising not to be mean to the union any more.

Lesson: If you're not going to say something nice, don't say anything at all.

AFGE v. U.S. Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kan., 55 FLRA No. 127, Federal Labor Relations Authority, August 10, 1999.

Fiscal Integrity

Kathey Fouquet was chief of fiscal operations at an Agriculture Department agency in Kansas City, Mo. In her role, Fouquet had oversight of billions of dollars in agricultural commodity payments each year.

But Fouquet tended to run with the wrong crowd. Her housemate was a seasoned white-collar criminal, with a list of charges ranging from embezzlement to counterfeiting. His habits may have rubbed off on Fouquet, because she was fired based on charges of conspiracy to counterfeit government checks and for participating in various theft crimes.

Fouquet, however, believed the agency was the conspirator. She appealed the removal action based in part on her belief that the action was simply retaliation for her filing of equal employment opportunity complaints.

She also contended that the agency had no right to punish her for crimes that were committed while she was off-duty. Fouquet and her housemate were implicated in several thefts, including burglary of furniture from model homes and theft of computer and office equipment from businesses in Kansas City. She even sold some of the stolen goods to a co-worker.

MSPB dismissed her appeals, saying the fact that the agency entrusted her with billions of dollars annually while she was committing theft in her off-duty time was enough of a reason to consider her position severely compromised. Fouquet's removal was sustained.

Lesson: Choose your friends and your hobbies wisely.

Kathey A. Fouquet v. Department of Agriculture, Merit Systems Protection Board (CH-075209600962-I-1), June 21, 1999

Mile Markers

Nadene Abramo, a Defense Contract Audit Agency auditor, drove from her home in Binghamton, N.Y., to a training session held in Rochester, N.Y. Her car's odometer clocked the distance as 200 miles each way. But the agency only reimbursed her for 172 miles. Abramo refused to accept the 28-mile difference and appealed to the General Services Administration's Board of Contract Appeals. The board ruled that the agency's measurement was gauged accurately, using the Defense Table of Official Distances' "practical mileage" system. To be sure, the judges even tested the distance using the Internet service Mapquest, which gives point-to-point driving distances between locations. Mapquest came up with 168 miles when calculating the distance, supporting the agency's calculation. Abramo's claim for the extra $17 was denied.

Lesson: Don't bother going the distance in fights over nickels and dimes.

Nadene R. Abramo v. Defense Finance and Accounting Service, General Services Board of Contract Appeals (GSBCA 15060-TRAV), August 10, 1999.