table of penalties douglas factors

Cir. The key inquiry here is whether like and similar cases have resulted in close-to-the-same discipline you are facing in your case. We often use this Douglas factor to illustrate personality conflicts in issuing proposed discipline by the proposing official or harassment by others in the workplace which led to the proposed discipline against a federal employee. The key to doing so is to fully argue the rationale behind this argument before the agency involved or the MSPB. Relevant? <>>> Your misconduct adversely affected not only the work you were assigned but required that your coworkers perform your duties as well taking time away from their assigned work. In some instances, you may want to request that management reconsider your case. As a result, it is very important for a federal employee to argue all applicable Douglas factors, and provide documentary evidence (e.g. The first Douglas Factor examines how the level of misconduct relates to an employees particular duties, as well as if the offense was committed intentionally. Douglas Factor Mitigation for Federal Employees And even if the circumstances surrounding the misconduct incident may be substantially similar, the penalty imposed may be different based upon an independent evaluation of the other Douglas Factors. The factors may mitigate or aggravate (1) The nature and seriousness of the offense, and its relation to the employee's 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.Relevant? The ranges of penalties shown in the Table are those that are considered to be most typical for offenses of the nature indicated. The Federal Starr arms federal employees with the wisdom and insight to successfully navigate their career, create stability for themselves and their family, and continue on their mission to serve the public. Yes___ No____What needs to be done to deter the conduct in the future by the employee or others? For example, in this type of case we would argue that you cannot issue a light penalty (e.g., 7-day suspension) for one federal employee and propose a 60-day suspension for another employee where the nature of the alleged conduct is so similar. Plaza America If a mitigation argument does not fit under the other 11 Douglas factors, it can, in most instances, be argued here. In contrast, an employee with multiple priorcases of discipline is likely to face a much greater amount of discipline owing to that factor alone. PDF Douglas Factors In Depth - Letter Carrier Connection Factor 10: Potential for the employees rehabilitation. For example, an allegation of dishonesty would be treated . Cir. So, if they have been convicted of violating the law, say stealing, this factor will likely cut against them and lead to a more severe penalty. While each case is different, seeking alternatives may be useful. endstream endobj startxref Yes___ No____The analysis of this factor involves much more than a supervisor's statement that he/she has lost confidence in the employee. This table should be available to you as an employee. Additionally, you have the right to pick a representative of your choosing should you not have union assistance available to you, or you wish to hire a different a representative. A deciding official must consider specific factors in determining the reasonableness of the penalty. PDF Douglas Factors - AFGE 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. 3 Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. %PDF-1.5 % Factors considered are the employee's job level and the type of employment that may include a supervisory or fiduciary role, contacts with the public, and prominence of the position. This Quick Start Guide covers the following Key Points: 1. 280, 302 (1981). These terms are used commonly in Douglas Factors application. Acknowledgement of Receipt: ______________________________ __________________ (Employee's Name) (Date) Sample: If employee fails or refuses to sign the acknowledgement: Sample: I certify that I handed this proposed action to (Employees Name) on (Date). hmo0 U6S!)Mh~wP`B|)ZAp!= xCKno:Phj-bXJbAw,,M]KO2]fka8c iGusuOIt XG.2o*XYa&5'0>lw,Utr;(}s]6rqGp_g5>G7eucOL_>& Greater or lesser penalties than suggested may be imposed as circumstances warrant, and based on a consideration of mitigating and aggravating factors. Factor 6: Consistency of the penalty with those imposed upon other employees for the same or similar offenses. Go through each Douglas Factorand try to write down points that arein your favor and points that are not in your favor for each one. In cases of severe misconduct, it may be appropriate to conduct an independent investigation of the misconduct through the Office of Human Resources, a third-party contact investigator or the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Factor 7: Consistency of the penalty with any applicable agency table of penalties. Knowing what managers are looking for will aid your oral reply presentation, and could be what saves you your job with the federal government. Explanation, if relevant: 9.Employee Assistance Program Paragraph: All Federal Agencies have EAP programs. accruing multiple instances of discipline can lead you on the fast track to removal from federal service. 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 . Lets say you missed a deadline for an important assignment and management has proposed removal. Our DC-Metropolitan Based Law Firm Specializes in Employment, Security Clearance, and Retirement Law. You neither came to work nor did you call in your absence. Additionally, this factor looks at intent. Your signature does not indicate agreement with this action; it only represents receipt of this notice on the date signed. Explanation, if relevant: (8) The notoriety of the offense or its impact upon the reputation of the agency. %PDF-1.5 Spending the money upfront on representation at your oral-reply,could save you from spending thousands of dollars fighting your case at the Merit Systems Protection Board. For instance, we have argued that instead of removing a federal employee that they should instead receive a suspension. Douglas Factor Analysis. 1999). (Use sample 1). Note: If the employee is in a bargaining unit, your Agency should have alternate language for these paragraphs. PDF Chapter 4. Hud Table of Offenses and Penalties PDF NASA Desk Guide for Table of Disciplinary Offenses and Penalties The reason(s) for this action is (are) specified below. Offenses related to intoxicants. Managers should contact the OIG or law enforcement where criminal conduct is suspected or alleged. Factor: Consistency with table of penalties 2. If you are looking for a representative, note that we are not taking on any cases at this time. The Douglas Factors explained, the keys to a discipline case - Ivancie Law The nature and seriousness of the offense, and its relationship to the employee's . -What kind of recovery can I get in my discrimination case? Be clear, terse, and apologetic. How do you handle these aggravating factors? In these circumstances, appropriate analysis of this factor may result in considering a more severe penalty. PDF DOI Department Manual Table of Offenses and Penalties Sample 2: You have the right to review the material relied on to support this proposed removal. It reduces maximum penalties for offenses like murders and other homicides; armed armed home invasion burglaries; armed armed carjackings, as I mentioned; armed robberies; unlawful gun . The Federal Starr is a publication by Starr Wright USA. For example, one could argue that given the lack of prior discipline that a proposed removal should be mitigated to a suspension action. 1999); see Gaines v. Department of the Air Force, 94 M.S.P.R. In theory, discipline should be both corrective and progressive. 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. We generally find that it is important to actually make sure that a proposed disciplinary action or a sustained final penalty has been listed appropriately under the agencys table of penalties. The Douglas Factors get their name from a 1981 MSPB decision holding that the MSPB would review an agency's penalty selection by applying factors that since have become known by the last name of the appellant, whose removal was upheld after the factors were applied. The Douglas factors come from a seminal employment case titled,Douglas v. VeteransAdministration, 5 MSPR 280 (1981). Yes___ No____Potential for rehabilitation can be both a major aggravating and mitigating factor. This factor is listed last because this consideration should occur after a thorough analysis of all the other Douglas Factors. After reading this guide, if you want to read further on the topic of federal employee discipline, you mayfind our guide toMSPB and discipline cases helpful. generadores de diesel precios In some instances the money they saved you may be less than their fee for taking your casea great result for you the employee. PDF The Douglas Factors 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. When an employee with a high level of trust and authority violates regulations, they generally face harsher penalties. Sample 1: I have attached the material relied on to support this proposed removal. PDF NASA DESK GUIDE FOR TABLE OF DISCIPLINARY OFFENSES AND PENALTIES Version 3 An employee with a significant disciplinary record most likely would have poor potential for rehabilitation. 1 Lisiecki v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 769 F.2d 1558, 1567 (Fed. . Deciding officials should do a Douglas analysis in every case, except when Congress . But you know one of your colleagues has recently missed a deadline of similar importance and was only issued a letter of reprimand. Do they have a positive track record? Therefore, I am proposing your removal from the Federal service to promote the efficiency of the service. Your absence was not approved by your supervisor. The first time an employee is What every federal employee facing discipline should be familiar with: The Douglas Factors. Explanation, if relevant: (3) The employee's past disciplinary record.Relevant? Weigh Douglas Factors in disciplinary cases - Ask The Lawyer Generally, the ranges of penalties are fairly broad (e.g., Letter of Reprimand to Proposed Removal). The more notorious the offense you commit the more severe the discipline you will face. However, if you properly argue this factor it can go a long way towards helping your case. 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. The first Douglas factor, nature and seriousness of the offense, generally refers to the connection between the seriousness of the allegation and the position that an individual federal employee holds. But do not highlight them either. 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. 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. 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. Performance-Based Actions under Chapters 43 and 75 of Title 5 - Similarities and Differences, Different Types of Adverse Actions Use Different Rules, Legal Sources for the Right to Notice and a Meaningful Opportunity to Reply, Decision-Maker Must Listen and Have Power to Decide, Connecting the Job and the Offense ("Nexus"), Labels are Not Required, but if Used They Must be Proven, How Employees Become Similarly Situated for Purposes of an Adverse Action Penalty, Avoid Facilitating Prohibited Personnel Practices (PPPs), Agency Officials' Substantive and Procedural Errors and How to Fix Them, Identifying Probationers and Their Rights, The Limited Powers of the U.S. You and your representative, if an agency employee, will be allowed a reasonable amount of official time to assist you in your reply, to review the material relied upon to support the reason for the proposed action, and to prepare and present your written and/or oral reply. The Douglas Factors include: The nature and seriousness of the offense, and its relation to the employee's 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. First, the employee must have been informed of the action in writing; second, the employee must have been given an opportunity to dispute the action by having it reviewed, on the merits, by an authority different from the one that took the action; and third, the action must be a matter of record. the adequacy and effectiveness of alternative sanctions to deter such conduct in the future by the employee or others. Consistency of the penalty with any table of penalties an agency may have . consistency of the penalty with any applicable agency table of penalties; (8) the notoriety of the offense or its impact upon the . 2278 0 obj <>stream Essentially, this factor asks: was the offense committed one that calls in question the employees ability to continue performing his job? The idea is that discipline is meantto be corrective and progressive. Factor 8: The notoriety of the offense or its impact upon the reputation of the agency. For example, we might argue that the lack of a clear agency policy on computer usage should result in mitigation of a penalty for an employee that has been charged with misuse of a government computer. On (DATE), you were scheduled to report to work at (TIME). For the employee, how you articulate and present the facts of yourcase greatly affect how management applies the Douglas Factors. PDF The Douglas Factors - Energy In addition, actions . But they may refuse to. We are currently not taking any new cases at this time. The argument in this type of case would be that the Agency has not truly lost confidence in the federal employees ability to perform their duties. On the surface, many incidents of misconduct may seem to be similar. 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 . Such cases call into question an employees ability to perform their specific job duties with integrity. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Many federal agencies maintain tables of penalties that detail discipline options for common offenses. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure youre on a federal government site. The 45 day deadline to file a discrimination claim, Federal EEOC, Fast Legal Answers: Federal Whistleblower Protection Act, an attorney with extensive experience practicing before the MSPB, Federalemployee's guide discipline cases and the MSPB, What every federal employee should know - The Douglas Factors. The national media picked the story up, and it was very detrimental to the agency. For example, a law enforcement officer is charged with enforcing laws. hbbd``b`:$ Hd V$D? Starr Wright USA a marketing name for Starr Wright Insurance Agency, Inc. and its affiliate(s). ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Therefore, you should anticipate factors the deciding official may focus on and structure your presentation accordingly. 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. Some Federal Agencies require the proposing official to conduct a Douglas analysis and include the proposal, others do not. What if I do not agree with managements analysisof a specific Douglas Factor? It is important that you really highlightthefactors that are in your favor. However, it is important to argue this Douglas factor where a prior federal employee case of a similar nature resulted in a lower disciplinary penalty. Postal Service, 634 F.3d 1274, 1279 (Fed. Breaking an obscure rule will be viewed less harshly than breaking one that is well publicized, and particularly one on which the employee was given specific notice. 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. A good example of negative notoriety are the recent cases involving Secret Service Agents that hiredescorts in South America. ELLU attorneys assist managers and human resource personnel in analyzing misconduct andconsideringappropriate discipline and adverse actions, in reviewing related proposals and decision letters, and defending the agency in appeals challenging adverse actions. If an employee is unwilling to even take responsibility for their actions, how can a manager be confident they will be rehabilitated after they are disciplined? Every case is different, so sometimes factors that really stand out in one case, have little to no significance in another. Take factor #4 for example, past work record, if you can get colleagues, supervisors, etc. Hiring an experienced federal employment law attorney for your oral reply can pay for itself many times over. 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 Usually, the root cause of different treatment in terms of disciplinary penalties tends to be favoritism by the Agency between different federal employees. If intentional, malicious misconduct, repeated offenses, or misconduct undertaken for personal gain may incur harsher penalties. Additionally, the Board cannot review the reasonableness of a penalty that is set by law. <> PDF Douglas Factors In Depth - Branch 38 NALC Why can such behavior not be tolerated?