GovernmentExecutive.com

A former Central Intelligence Agency analyst's firing was upheld after a federal appeals court found that her claims of Privacy Act violations and due process under the Fifth Amendment lacked merit.

Martha Hutchinson was fired from her job as a satellite photo analyst after three years of poor performance reviews starting in1988. She maintains that her supervisors caused the poor reviews because they kept switching her assignments in order to tarnish her performance after she corrected a co-worker's work.

In a lawsuit alleging emotional and economic harm, Hutchinson sued the CIA for a violation of the Privacy Act because of an omission from her file during an internal appeal and for due process violations.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a lower court's judgment against Hutchinson because she could not prove that any of her rights were violated.

Hutchinson, who graduated with distinction in 1988 from George Mason University with a geography degree, worked for the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center analyzing satellite photos of "intelligence-worthy locations" trying to detect changes, according to court documents.

Her Privacy Act violation claim was struck down because the court ruled that it failed to show cause and was not factually supported. The claim was based on an allegation that an affidavit stating that one of her poor ratings was "rife" with errors and contradicted previous guidance given to Hutchinson was excluded from an internal agency appeal.

Hutchinson's second claim of due process violation, based on assertions that she was defamed and her career choice as a geography analyst has been ruined, was ruled inadequate by the court. Other than receiving the stigma associated with being fired for poor performance, the court said that the CIA did not disparage Hutchinson to possible private sector employers.

Martha Hutchinson v. CIA, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Doc. #03-5303, Jan. 4, 2005.

Unfair Dismissal

A federal court ruling keeps the six-month time limit for filing an unfair labor practice charge against a federal agency from beginning until the agency has committed the unfair practice.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against the Federal Labor Relations Authority for dismissing an unfair labor practice complaint against the Internal Revenue Service.

When the IRS started requiring certain workers in the Seattle area to commute occasionally to its Seattle headquarters, the National Treasury Employees Union filed a grievance seeking compensation for the workers. An arbitrator ordered the IRS to compensate the workers for increased commuting time in August 2001 and ordered it to compile a list of workers who had been affected by the increased commute.

When the IRS failed to put together the list, NTEU tried to find out if the agency was going to comply with the arbitrator's decision, but the IRS said it was still waiting for a review from the Treasury Department. On Jan. 31, 2002, the IRS said in a letter to NTEU that the agency "does not have to take any action to implement the Arbitrator's award at this time." NTEU filed an unfair labor practice charge three weeks later.

The Federal Labor Relations Authority held that the six-month period in which NTEU could file an unfair labor practice complaint began when the arbitrator's decision was final in August 2001, and dismissed the matter.

The federal court ruled that FLRA's interpretation creates an "absurd situation" where charges could never be filed because the limitations period would expire before a charge became "ripe."

The case was sent back to FLRA for a ruling on the merits of the unfair labor practice complaint.

National Treasury Employees Union v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Doc. #03-1423, Dec. 17, 2004.

Post a Comment

To post a comment, you must provide a name and a valid e-mail address. Messages must be limited to 400 words. By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although Government Executive does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.