GovernmentExecutive.com

letters@govexec.com
ksaldarini@govexec.com

Every Friday on GovExec.com, Legal Briefs reviews several cases that involve, or provide valuable lessons to, federal managers. We report on the decisions of a wide range of review panels, including the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Federal Labor Relations Authority and federal courts.

William Tschappat, 61, filed an age discrimination complaint against the Labor Department when he wasn't selected for a job opening as a GS-13 manager. But the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission raised its collective eyebrow at the complaint: the person selected for the position was only five months younger than Tschappat.

Tschappat relied on a Supreme Court decision (O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterer's Corp., 6 S. Ct. 1307, 1996) that a person can sue for age discrimination in cases involving people in the same age group. But in that case, a 56-year-old sued for being replaced by a 40-year-old.

Since Tschappat and the person selected for the job were the same age and the Labor Department provided a good explanation of why the other person was better suited for the job, the EEOC rejected the age discrimination complaint.

Lesson: Sometimes you're just not the best candidate for the job.

Tshappat v. Labor Department, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (99-3326), July 22, 1999.

Discount Service

A cashier at the Defense Commissary Agency had an anti-coupon attitude and decided to take it out on customers. One time, a customer arranged coupons neatly and placed them on to the grocery belt. The cashier picked the coupons up and tossed them so they scattered among the customer's groceries. The cashier threw coupons into the air another time as well.

The cashier's rudeness was not limited to coupon angst; she took time out while ringing up a customer's order to munch on a bag of chips. The cashier was disciplined at least five times for being rude.

The agency finally fired the cashier, who appealed the firing to a Merit Systems Protection Board administrative judge. The judge reduced the firing to a 60-day suspension on the grounds that the cashier had been with the agency for 28 years and that she had received good performance appraisals.

The agency didn't want the anti-coupon, chip-eating cashier back on the job, so it appealed the judge's decision to the full Merit Systems Protection Board. The board reversed the judge's ruling, finding that the agency had given the cashier numerous chances to put a happy face on, but she had "never acknowledged that such behavior was improper or expressed any remorse."

Lesson: You don't need a price check to find out kindness doesn't cost a penny.

Holland v. Defense Department, Merit Systems Protection Board (99-0010), Aug. 17, 1999.

Piano Pressure

John Middleton, an assistant principal at the high school at the U.S. Air Force Base in Incirlik, Turkey, noticed an old piano sitting at the local elementary school. Middleton thought the piano was surplus or abandoned. When he inquired about the piano, an elementary school clerk said it didn't belong to the school and wasn't being used. So, Middleton took it home and began to repair it.

He was asked to return it a few weeks later, and did so immediately. But, three months later Middleton received notice of his removal from government service due to the piano incident. He was given 11 days to surrender his ID and ration cards and leave the country. Middleton filed for voluntary retirement instead, in order to get more time to arrange his affairs before leaving. At the time Middleton was recovering from broken ribs and a gall bladder operation and had been diagnosed with cancer.

He agreed to a settlement that would give him two months to leave the country if he retired and the agency rescinded its removal action. Middleton then filed a complaint with the Merit Systems Protection Board, saying his retirement was involuntary. MSPB said it had no jurisdiction over the case and dismissed Middleton without a hearing. But, upon appeal, The U.S. Federal Circuit Appeals Court ruled that MSPB "abused its discretion" when refusing Middleton a hearing. His allegations of undue time pressure were well-founded and deserve a hearing, the court ruled.

Lesson: Don't assume something is up for grabs without asking the proper authorities.

Middleton v. Defense Department, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (98-3409), August 10, 1999