The Dewey Publications Podcast

Several items of interest are discussed this week by Peter Broida:

• Knuckles v. Dept. or Army, CB7121140025V1 (NP 5/27/2015) (whether a 3rd level grievance decision constitutes a final grievance determination for purposes of Board review);
• Grant v. Dept. of Treasury, DC0752140237I1 (NP 5/27/2015) (use of unofficially-prepared hearing transcripts on petitions for review);
• Dept. of Army, Corps of Engineers and AFGE, 68 FLRA No. 104 (5/27/2015) (the impact of agency factual misstatements to employees during a union election campaign);
• Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 12 and Dept. of Navy, 68 FLRA No. 98 (5/19/2015) (review of physical agility testing program for civilian police and guards under the Rehabilitation Act);
• Strickland v. Dept. of Navy, AT0752137164I1 (NP 5/20/2015) (due process in the availability of reply rights to an adverse action proposal);
• DHUD and AFGE Local 222, 68 FLRA No. 100 (5/22/2015) (comments in dissent by Member Pizzella concerning FLRA practice of remanding cases to the same arbitrators whose decisions are reviewed through exceptions);
• Complainant v. Lew, Dept. of Treasury, EEOC OFO 0120122603 (5/8/2015) (agency violated Title VII by disciplining an employee for internal protests of EEO complaints within the agency chain of command rather than exclusively through the EEOC process).

Several items of interest are discussed this week by Peter Broida:

• Complainant v. Donahoe, Postmaster General, EEOC 0720120041 (burdens of proof in reprisal cases; last chance agreements);
• Dyson v. Dept. of Defense, DC0752131235I1 (NP 12/8/2014) (permissible limitations on the scope of a hearing in an adverse action appeal);
• AFGE Local 1156 and Dept. of Navy, Naval Supply Business Systems Center, Mechanicsburg, 68 FLRA 531 (4/30/2015) (precondition of back pay for counsel fee award in arbitration);
• Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, FCI Ray Brook and AFGE Local 3802, 68 FLRA 492 (4/22/2015) (information requests, particularized need, and FOIA exemptions).

Several items of interest are discussed this week by Peter Broida:

• Johnson v. Dept. of Air Force, DE­0752­14­0091­I­2 (NP 4/2/2015) (adverse action resulting from unintended off­duty consumption of a marijuana laced brownie at a birthday party);
• Parker v. VA, 2015 MSPB 30 (4/6/2015) (adverse action based on false EEO complaint);
• AFGE Local 3961 and Dept. of Air Force, Ft. Sam Houston, 68 FLRA No. 75 (4/10/2015) (consequences of brief electronic filing system delay on exceptions to an arbitration award);
• Dept. of Air Force, Hill AFB and AFGE Local 1592, 68 FLRA No. 80 (4/16/2015) (effect of exclusions from the FLMRS under 5 USC 7103(b)(1) and E.O. 12,171 upon union representation rights at agency investigatory interviews).
• The answers to last podcast's surprise quiz on the top 10 Board cases of all time
• Plus a special question for exceptionally Board­centric practitioners.

Several items of interest are discussed this week by Peter Broida:

• Heimer v. VA, DE-0432-14-0347-I-1 (NP March 24, 2015) (due process and ex-parte considerations in Chapter 43 performance cases);
• Viscardi v. Dept. of Defense, NY-0752-13-0938-I-1 (NP March 24, 2015) (furloughs: age discrimination and a disparate impact defense);
• NFFE Local 2189 and Jarman, 68 FLRA 374 (2015) (ULP against union based on denial of membership under 5 USC 7116(c));
• And the big quiz (name the top ten MSPB cases of all time).

Several items of interest are discussed this week by Peter Broida:

• EEOC Request for Comment: New Federal Sector Regulations or Initiatives
• Caros v. DHS, 2015 MSPB 16 (Feb. 23, 2015) (Laffey-rate awards; structured retainer agreements)
• AFGE Local 2595 and DHS, C&BP, 68 FLRA 293 (Feb. 25, 2015) (Member Pizzella, dissenting) (determinants of flagrant misconduct)
• Thome v. DHS, 2015 MSPB 27 (Feb. 27, 2015) (Pregnancy Discrimination Act analysis)
• Complainant v. Jewell, 0120142623 (Jan. 25, 2015) (analysis of agency liability for EEO violations towards contractor employees)
• Castro v. Dept. of Army, DA-0752-14-0660-I-1 (NP March 9, 2015) (importance of comprehensive election of remedies notices in adverse action decisions)

Several items of interest are discussed this week by Peter Broida:

• Herring v. MSPB (Fed. Cir. 2015) (factors to be considered by the Board in deciding whether to waive a late appeal filed by counsel involving a retirement benefit)
• Sanders v. DHS, 2015 MSPB 7 (Jan. 15, 2015) (evaluation of evidence presented first to the Board concerning the appellant's recovery from a medical condition leading to a removal for inability to perform the essential functions of the position)
• Ridenour v. Dept. of Agriculture, SF-0752-14-0228-I-1 (NP Feb. 19, 2015) (balancing the duty of loyalty within an agency vis-a-vis agency clients)
• Petitioner v. McDonald, EEOC 0320140027 (OFO Jan. 22, 2015) (determining that an agency need not create a permanent light duty position to accommodate an employee whose disability precludes him or her from performing the essential functions of the position)

Several items of interest are discussed this week by Peter Broida:

• Ortolano v. SSA, (MSPB NP NY-0752-13-1055-I-1 Feb. 4, 2015) (reassignment not a mitigation alternative in a Chapter 75 case)
• Payton v. VA (MSPB NP AT-0752-14-0055-I-1 Jan. 29, 2015) (importance of avoiding overstatement of potential harm of an appellant's actions in the Douglas Factor worksheet by the deciding official)
• Rosario-Fabregas v. Dept. of Army, 2015 MSPB 13 (Feb. 13, 2015) (proper approach of an agency in securing documentation from appellant to determine fitness to return to duty and to evaluate accommodative requirements as to a modified assignment following return from a period of leave initiated by the appellant)

Several items of interest are discussed this week by Peter Broida:

• Dept. of Homeland Security v. MacLean, (Supreme Court Jan 21, 2015) (whistleblower disclosures that are prohibited by law (or not))
• MSPB Regulatory Changes (Jan. 28, 2015)
• VA Medical Center and AFGE Local 2145, (68 FLRA No. 26 (Jan. 26, 2015) (the new application of equitable tolling applied to the time limit for filing exceptions to arbitration awards);

Several items of interest are discussed this week by Peter Broida:

• Young v. USPS, AT-0752-09-0177-C-2 (NP Jan. 9, 2015) (getting advisory opinions on the application of disputed settlement provisions through enforcement proceedings)
• Carrion v. VA, SF-0432-13-1460-I-1 (NP Dec. 29, 2014) (getting the PIP wrong in a Chapter 43 case: the importance of the opportunity period and the agency's promise of assistance)
• Bowles v. GPO, AT-0752-14-0169-I-1 (NP Jan. 16, 2015) (counsel fees and the nonprevailing party: why counsel have a hard time recovering fees when agencies cancel actions while Board appeals are pending before judges)
• Lane v. OPM, DA-0731-13-0504-I-1 (NP Jan. 16, 2015) (what you need to know about OPM-initiated suitability removal cases)
• Holder v. VA, DA-0752-14-0388-I-1 (NP Jan. 16, 2015) (the importance of action by agency personnel as a contributing factor to constructive adverse actions)
• Higbie v. United States, Fed. Cir. 2014-5042 (Jan. 14. 2015) (although money damages may be available for breach of confidentiality provisions of settlements reached in MSPB cases, damages are not available for breach of a confidential provision in an EEO mediation agreement (Dissent by Judge Taranto)
• Board of Veterans Appeals and AFGE Local 17, 68 FLRA 170 (Jan. 8, 2015) (comments by Member Pizzella concerning the Authority's misconstruction or misapplication of the "nonfact" exception)

Several items of interest are discussed this week by Peter Broida:

• Complainant v. Tennessee Valley Authority, EEOC 0120121877 (factors permitting a compulsory fitness for duty exam without violating the ADA and Rehabilitation Act)
• Carrion v. VA, SF-0432-13-1460-I-1 (NP Dec. 29, 2014) (the conflict between the opportunity period represented by a PIP and near absolute performance standards)
• Ahuruonye v. Dept. of Interior, DC-531D-14-0587-I-1 (NP Dec. 29, 2014) (avoiding problems when denying a WIGI and a subsequent Board appeal)
• Prouty & Weller v. GSA, 2014 MSPB 90 (Dec. 24, 2014) (avoiding problems when considering adverse actions prompted under the pressure of nationally-publicized events)