Remember, there is only one absolute penalty, which can be given without a Douglas analysis - the 30-day suspension required under law for misuse of a government vehicle. %PDF-1.6 % Explanation, if relevant: (5) The effect of the offense upon the employee's ability to perform at a satisfactory level and its effect upon supervisors' confidence in the employee's ability to perform assigned duties. While some federal agencies attempt to use this Douglas factor in an effort to attempt to increase a federal employees disciplinary penalty, we have found that this factor is extremely helpful for purposes of a reduction in the employees penalty. Private sector cases are drastically different. Factor 3: The employees past disciplinary record. However, the principle of "like penalties for like offenses" does not require perfect consistency. Yes___ No____In evaluating the seriousness of the misconduct, an offense is more severe if it was intentional rather than inadvertent and if it was frequently repeated rather than being an isolated incident. If you are low level employee with no supervisory functions this factor should have some mitigating value. The table of penalties can be a useful guide to an agency's wishes, but remember, the Merit Systems Protection Board has the final say. 64 0 obj <>/Filter/FlateDecode/ID[<3B0C3180ECE15C735B3288C81A6A54AE><030475FC020CB04DB606BDDC5C48A5E3>]/Index[49 24]/Info 48 0 R/Length 81/Prev 157377/Root 50 0 R/Size 73/Type/XRef/W[1 2 1]>>stream If an employees misconduct generates publicity and negative attention to an agency or otherwise damages its reputation, expect a more severe penalty. For example, an attorney wont have to expend nearly as much time preparing a really solid oral-reply than they would expend preparing for a full administrative hearing at the Merit Systems Protection Board. Bargaining unit employees may grieve an adverse action under the negotiated grievance procedure in a collective bargaining agreement rather than challenging it to the MSPB. \3zn8SJOkRL8=/q1qRZjwBKoL `3e8Zg-?3L#wX|1P)3|\gbi nLY~@WTRSRIG. See Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. A table of penalties is a non-exhaustive list of common infractions along with a suggested range of penalties for each infraction. The argument for mitigation here is that the federal employee continued to work in their normal position while the investigation was ongoing. For example, a law enforcement officer is charged with enforcing laws. On (DATE), your supervisor had to take time away from her duties to complete your (Specify) assigned project. An example of an aggravating factor would be an employee who has been previously discipline for the same misconduct two times within the last year. hbbd``b`:$ Hd V$D? The Douglas Factors (wiki) are comprised of 12 different points of analysis which a federal manager must consider when they act as a deciding official in a discipline case. Explanation, if relevant: (11) Mitigating circumstances surrounding the offense such as unusual job tensions, personality problems, mental impairment, harassment, or bad faith, malice or provocation on the part of others involved in the matter.Relevant? Stewarding Conservation and Powering Our Future, Toggle Dyslexia-friendly black-on-creme color scheme. For example, a federal agency may attempt to use the particular position that a federal employee holds (e.g., high-level supervisorsuch as Senior Executive Service [SES]) or type of position (e.g., law enforcement) as an aggravating factor. It is critical for the agency to articulate a relationship between the misconduct and the employee's position and responsibilities. The consistency of the penalty with any applicable agency table of penalties; 8. Essentially, this factor asks: was the offense committed one that calls in question the employees ability to continue performing his job? We are all human, we all make mistakes, how you handle those mistakes speaks volumes about your character. Important things to consider for this factor are how long you have been employed by the federal government generally, and your agency specifically (if you were previously in the armed forces or worked for another civilian agency). We need to specifically state why there is erosion of supervisory confidence. It is important that you really highlightthefactors that are in your favor. Merit Systems Protection Board, Why Federal Employees Have the Right to a Hearing, Implementing or Challenging Initial Decisions, Agency Officials Substantive and Procedural Errors and How to Fix Them. See, e.g., Semans v. Department of the Interior, 62 M.S.P.R. Producing a doctors note to management confirming the hospitalization supports the validity of your claim and will be harder for management to overlook than had you just made a verbal assertion of the same. If you can make a strong enough case the Administrative Judge (AJ) may modify or cancel the discipline in your case. In short: if youre facing removal leveraging the 12 Douglas Factors the right way could save your job. If you have been disciplined before you will face harsher discipline going forward. There are certain standards of behavior and conduct expected of employees by our external and internal customers. The twelve factors, as determined by the Merit Systems Protection Board, that must be considered in any federal employees discipline case are: Now, lets take a closer look at each factor individually. Factor 1: The nature and seriousness of the offense, and its relation to the employees duties, position, and responsibilities, including whether the offense was intentional or technical or inadvertent, or was committed maliciously or for gain, or was frequently repeated. What every federal employee facing discipline should be familiar with: The Douglas Factors. Yes___ No____What needs to be done to deter the conduct in the future by the employee or others? By contrast, the Douglas Factors are well known by managers becausethey have to reference and articulate how those factors interplay with the specifics of every disciplinarycase they preside over. Tables of Penalties are guidelines that work in conjunction with the criteria supervisors use to determine appropriate penalties for misconduct, called the Douglas Factors.1 They do not specify mandatory discipline.2 Tables of Penalties also do not apply to contractors, and each agency has discretion as to which employees the Table will apply. ?Y9"0t@_, l 3bNC+ sj2 *+2UjBu^sW6\ r 280, 290 (1981). For example, lets say you are arguing that there aremitigating factors present in your case (factor #11) because your child was hospitalized for a full month leading up to your misconduct. The fourth Douglas Factor requires managers to take an employees past performance into account. 10 Ward v. U.S. The site is secure. In some instances, however, an employees misconduct will be so severe its obvious they cant be rehabilitated and brought back on the job. Managers should have a legitimate, non-discriminatory or "business" reason for taking a disciplinary action. The use of a federal employees past disciplinary record is one of the more commonly cited Douglas factors. Discipline can range from letters of reprimand to short suspensions. The ninth Douglas Factor asks whether an employee knew or should have known about the potential implications of their actions. You will be notified in writing of the final decision. Agency's table of penalties recognizes this severity in establishing ranges of penalties for such factors as the value or the property or amounts of employee time involved, and the nature of the position held by the offending employee which may If an employee was experiencing stressful situations such as a mental health issue, divorce or a death in the family that contributed to the offense, they may present those and ask for leniency. Managers should contact the OIG or law enforcement where criminal conduct is suspected or alleged. It is often the case that a federal employee has been charged with a violation of agency rules but has not been properly trained with respect to these rules or regulations. Contact your employee relations advisor to get the information to fill in the blanks. If this is impractical to do, use Sample 2. Douglas factors can be used as mitigating or aggravating factors so it is important to fully understand the application of both types of legal arguments. This Quick Start Guide covers the following Key Points: 1. 1 0 obj It is important to rebut these issues in a Douglas factor defense. As a result, it is very important for a federal employee to argue all applicable Douglas factors, and provide documentary evidence (e.g. Your absence was not approved by your supervisor. what extent, the "Douglas" factors come into play or how egregious the act was. Cir. If you follow this guide, and focus on the factors that support your position, and provide credible evidence in support of your points, you will have gone a long way towards lowering the amountdiscipline you will receive. * Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. 8 Lachance v. Devall, 178 F.3d 1246, 1260 (Fed. Sample: If you need assistance in dealing with any personal matters, the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) is available to provide confidential counseling services. The Douglas Factors . Xu"! } =!4$?g*QUHC(K(! SO4T=1!M|#7LSR"z/U1'6P($PC=Q"@/BQy~>S,;@ removal). Postal Service, 634 F.3d 1274, 1282 (Fed. This Douglas factor is not one of the more commonly cited Douglas factors. 49 0 obj <> endobj It is important to note a case was recently lost in another government agency when the deciding official stated the Agency's zero tolerance policy on workplace violence required him to remove the employee from governmental service. If the action is less than a removal, add: Further misconduct on your part may result in disciplinary action up to and including removal from your position and from Federal service. Any personal issues going on around the time of the misconduct should be brought to the attention of management. Typically, this factor is used by an agency to support an increase in the proposed disciplinary penalty. Ultimately, the more credible evidence you can provide to support your position the better. 4 Archuleta v. Hopper, 786 F.3d 1340, 1352 (Fed. Factor: Employee's . Non-disciplinary counseling, guidance memoranda, provision of Agency policy to the employee and requiring the reading and signing of certain rules are methods to communicate what are the requirements of conduct in the workplace. When these expectations are not met as a result of an employee's misconduct, the reputation of the Agency may be tarnished. Internal Control Evaluation, page 21 . In cases of federal employee misconduct, each of these factors must be considered by those who are tasked with determining an appropriate penalty. endstream endobj 50 0 obj <> endobj 51 0 obj <> endobj 52 0 obj <>stream Similar offenses can be used to guide penalty selection. Another example would be an employee who holds a position as a clerk where they regularly handle money deposited by the public and are responsible for balancing small accounts. Please designate your representative, if any, by name, address, position, and employer in a signed statement, and forward that statement to (Deciding Official's Name) at the above stated address, before the expiration of the reply period. When our firm prepares an appeal to the MSPB for a client or in a case before a deciding official at the proposal stage it is important to set forth any and all mitigating factors that might be applicable to a federal employees case. Consistency of the penalty with any table of penalties an agency may have . Take factor #4 for example, past work record, if you can get colleagues, supervisors, etc. Generally, one of the most important areas in defending a federal employee in these types of cases involves arguing the application of the Douglas Factors in attempting to mitigate (or reduce) disciplinary penalties issued in a case. Explanation, if relevant: (12) The adequacy and effectiveness of alternative sanctions to deter such conduct in the future by the employee or others.Relevant? For instance, if a mental health issue or addiction caused problems on the job but the employee has since sought out effective treatment that may be an acceptable alternative. In the case of Douglas vs. Veterans Administration, 5 MSPR 280 (1981), the . Cir. When looking for an attorney make sure they have experience handling federal-sector employment cases. Starr Wright USA a marketing name for Starr Wright Insurance Agency, Inc. and its affiliate(s). Cir. So, if you do not conform your conductafter being disciplined the first time the penalty will be increased in hope that the misbehavior will cease as you respond to harsher discipline. @b o $&F Sq70 # The Douglas Factors The Merit Systems Protection Board in its landmark decision, Douglas vs. Veterans Administration, 5 MSPR 280, established criteria that supervisors must consider in . 9 Ward v. U.S. Just knowing the rules, however, cant fully protect you if a case should arise. Explanation, if relevant: (8) The notoriety of the offense or its impact upon the reputation of the agency. However, if you properly argue this factor it can go a long way towards helping your case. If the offense is related to duties that are at the heart of an employees position, penalties may be more severe. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240. The notoriety of the offense or its impact upon the reputation of the Agency; 9 . disciplinary situations. Consistency of the penalty with any applicable agency table of penalties; (8) The notoriety of the offense or its impact upon the reputation . These factors are collectively known as the Douglas factors for the case that articulated them and they are still in use today. Douglas Factors In Depth The Merit Systems Protection Board in its landmark decision, Douglas vs. Veterans Administration, 5 MSPR 280, established criteria that supervisors must consider in determining . The Douglas factors are critical for federal employees facing a pending disciplinary action or for those at the MSPB on appeal. We are currently not taking any new cases at this time. For instance, in the disciplinary cases that we handle we might attempt to seek mitigation of a proposed disciplinary penalty by arguing that an employees outstanding performance (e.g., performance ratings, commendations/awards and letters from supervisors/co-workers) during their years of service support a reduction in a disciplinary penalty. Only relevant factors must be included. Fighting Title 31 Currency Seizures issued by CBP, New executive order on anti-dumping and countervailing duties, Roberts v. DHS A pro se challenge to the Global Entry Program, Q & A with a Merit Systems Protection Board Representative, Fighting a Failure to Declare Penalty (19 USC 1497) issued by CBP. 14.CC:s CCs always include the deciding official and may include a human resources office official and/or legal counsel in accordance with your Agencys practice.CC: PAGE PAGE 9 / 0 1 2 3 ? This factor basically asks: Did you know, or should you have known, that what you did was wrong and that you would be punished for engaging in that kind ofconduct? accruing multiple instances of discipline can lead you on the fast track to removal from federal service. You may make arrangements for an oral reply by contacting (Deciding Official's Name) at (Deciding Official's Telephone). xfg! A final decision will not be made in this matter until your written and/or oral replies have been received and considered, or, if no reply is received, until after the time specified for the replies has passed. What kind of recovery can I get in my discrimination case? Douglas Factor Analysis. Generally, this factor tends to be used more by a federal agency to aggravate (increase) the proposed disciplinary penalty. 280, 302 (1981). Yes___ No____The notoriety of an offense or its impact on the reputation on the Agency is usually directly related to the seriousness of the misconduct and/or prominence of the employee's position. Starr Wright USA is an insurance agency specializing in insurance solutions for federal employees and federal contractors. Specification #2. <>/ExtGState<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageB/ImageC/ImageI] >>/Annots[ 15 0 R 16 0 R 17 0 R 18 0 R 19 0 R 20 0 R 21 0 R 22 0 R 23 0 R 24 0 R 25 0 R 26 0 R 27 0 R 28 0 R 34 0 R 35 0 R 36 0 R] /MediaBox[ 0 0 612 792] /Contents 4 0 R/Group<>/Tabs/S/StructParents 0>> 1999). Generally, this argument is used by a federal employee to support a reduction in penalty based on their good record of service to their agency (e.g. Do not deny the existence of bad facts. The first time an employee is This article covers the Douglas Factors. Cir. %%EOF This Douglas factor tends to be a general mitigation factor that can incorporate many different types of arguments for mitigating a penalty.

Is Anyburn Safe, Democrat Obituaries For Today, Puppies For Sale Greeley, Co, Hollywood Park Concert Venue Seating Chart, Caribbean Population In South Florida, Articles T