GovernmentExecutive.com

Michelle Reagan was working as a budget analyst at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., in 1997 when she accused her supervisor of leading an office-wide conspiracy against her.

In a September 1997 letter to academy officials, Reagan asked to be reassigned so she would no longer have to work with the supervisor. Reagan was temporarily assigned to another office for nine months, and when the assignment ended she requested sick leave without pay to avoid returning to her permanent position. Her request was denied for lack of medical documentation, and Reagan was classified as absent without leave until she provided the documentation.

In August 1998, Reagan's doctor sent a letter saying that she suffered from a major depression and adjustment disorder. According to the doctor, Reagan could work, but she could not work for her old supervisor. Reagan wrote to the superintendent of the Naval Academy, repeating her allegations of harassment, and asked to be reassigned again. The superintendent investigated her charges and, after finding no evidence of harassment, denied her request. Four days later, Reagan asked for 30 days of advance sick leave, but her request was denied. Reagan was fired in November 1998.

Reagan appealed her dismissal to the Merit Systems Protection Board and reached a settlement with the Navy in May 1999. According to the agreement, the Navy would give Reagan her old job back for a one-year trial period. Reagan had to exhibit exemplary behavior during the trial period, or she would be fired again. Reagan returned to work in July 1999. A few days later, Reagan's supervisor chastised her for playing games on her computer. Reagan left the office after having conversations with two other employees in which she yelled, screamed and used profanity. Reagan was fired. She filed a lawsuit against the Navy in Federal District Court alleging wrongful termination, disability discrimination and retaliation.

A federal judge ruled against Reagan because she did not have a disability as described in the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, and she did not prove the agency had retaliated against her.

"Based on the present record, Reagan is not substantially limited in the major life activity of working," the judge said in its ruling. "Not only do Reagan and her psychologist claim that she could perform her current job if she is separated from [the supervisor], Reagan also claims that she could perform many other jobs."

Michelle Reagan v. Navy Secretary Gordon England, Federal District Court (Doc. #CIV. JFM-02-373), Sept. 4, 2002.

Promotion Commotion

In 1993, Samuel Forkkio was temporarily promoted to chief of the accounting and tax policy section of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. He held the temporary GS-15 position until 1997, when the agency was reorganized and Forkkio's section was eliminated.

After the reorganization, Forkkio's job responsibilities remained the same, but the agency changed his position to a GS-14 and his title to senior accountant.

Forkkio, who is black, filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that alleged racial discrimination because, prior to the reorganization, he was one of seven temporary section chiefs. All of the other temporary chiefs, who were white, were promoted to their positions permanently after the reorganization.

When the agency's accounting and tax policy section was restored, the section chief position was posted as a temporary position. Forkkio did not apply. The position was reposted as a permanent GS-15 position and the agency asked Forkkio to serve as acting section chief. He became the permanent section chief in April 1997, but later became upset when his supervisor made personnel decisions about Forkkio's staff without consulting him.

Forkkio filed three more complaints with the EEOC. According to Forkkio, when he was not awarded the section chief position during the reorganization, the agency discriminated against him. He also claimed that his supervisor retaliated against him because of his earlier complaint. A federal judge ruled in favor of the agency, concluding that Forkkio did not prove he had been discriminated or retaliated against. Forkkio appealed that decision.

The Federal District Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the agency after finding that Forkkio's responsibilities and salary didn't change after the reorganization.

"Forkkio failed to provide any evidence...of any adverse consequences to his position or future career, especially in light of his promotion to a permanent Grade 15 section chief position less than one year later," the court said in its ruling.

Samuel Forkkio v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal District Court of Appeals (Doc. #01-5080), Oct. 18, 2002.