ksaldarini@govexec.com
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.
Annie Houston was an outstanding employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs, according to a performance review written by her section chief. But several months after that review, the same section chief falsely accused Houston of stealing carpet from her office. What went wrong?
Houston figured her boss was trying to get back at her for a claim she filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission accusing the boss of pre-selecting someone else for a job she wanted. Houston was told she had inferior qualifications, but she believed she was discriminated against. She filed another complaint with EEOC, this time alleging reprisal for prior EEO activity.
Upon review, the EEOC agreed that Houston's section chief was motivated by retaliation when he accused her of stealing the carpet. He and all the other managers in Houston's division were ordered to go through training for their actions.
Lesson: When it comes to responding to charges of discrimination, don't be a carpetbagger.
Annie Houston v. Veterans Affairs, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (01976054), August 27, 1999
Badge of Dishonor
The Border Patrol, a division of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, celebrated its 75th anniversary this year. The Border Patrol wanted to purchase medals for its agents to wear "to commemorate the honorable service of and sacrifices made by thousands of men and women, officers and non-officers, who have served in the Border Patrol since its inception." The Border Patrol estimated the medals would cost $8 to $9 each, for a total cost of $99,000.
The INS decided that it would be inappropriate to use government funds to buy the medals. Nevertheless, the agency asked the Comptroller General for his opinion on the issue.
Contrary to the INS' decision, it would be completely appropriate to use government funds for the medals, the Comptroller General David M. Walker said. "The medals convey as well as serve an institutional purpose-i.e., reminding the public and agency staff of the Border Patrol's 75 years of hard work and dedication, advancing knowledge and appreciation for the agency's history and mission and promoting the stability and longevity of the agency."
Unfortunately, the decision came too late for the Border Patrol agents, who had to purchase the medals themselves.
Lesson: Don't make your employees pay for their own honors.
Matter of INS Appropriations-Purchase of Medals-75th Anniversary, Comptroller General (B-280440), February 26, 1999
Judging Judges
In a recent case affecting more than 1,200 recent applicants for administrative law judge positions, the Merit Systems Protection Board ruled that the selection process for administrative judges discriminates against people who are not eligible for veterans' preference. In 1996, OPM began using a new formula to rank scores on judges' qualification exams. The new formula has the potential to make veterans' points the dominant determinant of high ranking, the board found.
The judge ruled that any scores assigned under the new formula be rescinded, and that OPM discontinue using any register of candidates constructed through the use of that formula. The judge also granted the appellants' request that all class members who were not appointed as administrative law judges, but who were within the zone of consideration at the time the formula was used, be given priority consideration for future placement as judges.
Lesson: Don't give veterans too much preference.
Ann S. Azdell and Donald B. Fishman v. Office of Personnel Management, Merit Systems Protection Board (DC-300A-97-0369-I-2), September 23, 1999