GovernmentExecutive.com

The Merit Systems Protection Board upheld the Justice Department's decision to fire an immigration inspector for falsifying time and attendance sheets.

An audit revealed that Selena Young, a GS-9 level immigration inspector at Justice, failed to report a substantial amount of sick leave and vacation time on her time sheets. After the audit, the department fired Young.

Young requested a hearing with an arbitrator, claiming she had not intentionally falsified her timesheets. She said the Justice Department had never trained her how to fill out the sheets correctly and alleged her dismissal was actually a case of racial and sexual discrimination.

The arbitrator dismissed her claims in a November 2001 ruling, and she appealed her case to the Merit Systems Protection Board. She argued that Justice could not prove she knowingly lied on her time sheets. The board agreed that "the mere fact that an employee provides incorrect information cannot control the question of intent."

But in a March 4 ruling, the MSPB upheld the arbitrator's decision in favor of Justice. Over a period of 16 months, Young had failed to report 256.3 hours of vacation and sick leave on her time sheets, the board noted. "While careless bookkeeping or oversight could reasonably explain a few instances of timekeeping errors, it could not account for that volume," the ruling stated.

In addition, a "review of the record reveals that the time and attendance sheets do not seem terribly complex and contain clearly delineated boxes for 'annual leave' and 'sick leave,'" the board wrote in its decision.

The arbitrator and MSPB also said Young had not produced any evidence of discrimination.

Young v. Department of Justice, Merit Systems Protection Board (CB-7121-02-0016-V-1), March 4, 2003

Performance Standards

The Navy can fire a pilot project worker for poor job performance, the Merit Systems Protection Board ruled.

In October 1999, Navy supervisors chastised Cynthia Guillebeau, a GS-13 level engineer working on a Navy demonstration project approved by the Office of Personnel Management, because she failed to meet work deadlines. Guillebeau also failed to communicate with her supervisor and allowed technical problems to slow her down without seeking out "immediate and appropriate" help.

After telling Guillebeau her work was not adequate, her supervisors developed a performance plan to help her improve her performance.

The performance plan contained two assignments that she had to complete in two months. Under Chapter 5, Section 4703, which governs demonstration projects approved by OPM, agencies are allowed to fire employees if they fail to meet standards spelled out in performance plans, as long as the standards are not completely inflexible and allow some room for error.

Guillebeau did not meet her two-month deadline for completing the projects outlined in her performance plan. Her supervisors granted her two month-long extensions, but by February 2000, she had still not fully completed her assignments.

OPM fired Guillebeau on March 31, 2000 because of poor performance. She challenged the decision, claiming OPM discriminated against her because she had obsessive compulsive disorder. Guillebeau requested a hearing from an administrative law judge.

The judge ruled that Guillebeau lacked grounds for her disability claim, but decided that the Navy had to rehire her because the standards her supervisors set forth in her performance plan were too strict and allowed no room for error.

The Navy appealed the decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board, claiming that OPM had granted an exemption from some of the demonstration project requirements. In turn, Guillebeau filed a motion to dismiss Navy's appeal, claiming the Navy had failed to follow the judge's order to rehire her. She alleged that she was initially restored to pay status but claimed the Navy subsequently suspended her again.

In a March 28 decision, the MSPB said it found no basis to believe the Navy had violated the administrative judge's order. But the board also ruled that the Navy had a reasonable justification for firing Guillebeau.

Cynthia A. Guillebeau v. Navy, Merit Systems Protection Board (AT-0432-00-0542-I-2), March 28, 2003

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.