Proposal for termination from a federal agency

[Anonymous]

Seeking some advice from anyone that may have experienced something similar…

My husband works for a fed agency and was recently investigated for time theft…it was for a period of about 6 weeks at the end of 2022 where they are claiming he billed time that was wasn’t worked.
After a year long investigation they are now proposing termination. He claims he was working during that timeframe but the proposal outlines all the dates and times he was unproductive.

He has 2 weeks to respond. He is hoping the union will be able to help him clear his name and thinks he will be able to successfully appeal it…

Has anyone ever gone through something like this and had it overturned? I have suggested that he get an employment attorney to help navigate this but he is pretty adamant that they are wrong and he will be fine…if that was the case then they would not have proposed this to begin with!

The whole situation is so frustrating and I don’t even know what to do…if anyone has a referral for an attorney that specialize in this type of thing that would be helpful too!!

[Anonymous]

What's the evidence? Was he teleworking? Computer not accessed? No badge swipes? Did not respond to emails or phone calls? Are they claiming 1-2 hours per day, whole days, whole weeks?

Lots of feds are unproductive, some flat out unproductive and others BSing their lack of productivity. Why are they jumping to time card fraud? Does he have a history of performance issues?

No recs for an attorney, but he should get one. There was a thread last week or so asking for recs. Let me see if I can find it.

[Anonymous]

Get an attorney.

[Anonymous]

I'm a fed and, since Covid, I've sent a weekly email to my boss, outlining the things I worked on for the week...so I can easily go back and find all of them.

Does DH have this, or any other evidence of work accomplished during that period?

But yes, an employment lawyer would help.

[Anonymous]

Here's the discussion:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1229338.page#28412662

[Anonymous]

I went through a failed security reinvestigation.

I was never presented with the actual evidence of what they alleged.

They only gave me a vague list of what I supposedly did. Things like “you sent an email on your personal account that was determined to contain confidential information.” Didn’t specify date, time, etc.

I asked for specifics and was told I could not see it. My lawyer also asked and she was denied.

I retained an attorney but ultimately was terminated. There was no union involved and nothing beyond an internal process that was pretty clearly a sham.

I very much hope for the best for you and your husband, but I would not hold out hope. The feds can get away with quite a bit.

[Anonymous]

He should be able to get access to all of the evidence they intend to introduce at the termination hearing. Do that, see what they have on him. One thing I've learned is that unfortunately people lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He should be able to get access to all of the evidence they intend to introduce at the termination hearing. Do that, see what they have on him. One thing I've learned is that unfortunately people lie.

pp here. They refused to provide me with any evidence. I also caught them in lies that I pointed out to them. None of it made a difference in the outcome.

[Anonymous]

They must really have it out for him if they went back to 2022. I'm curious how it came up. Your husband has been given a proposed "adverse action." You need to read about the process: https://www.mspb.gov/studies/adverse_action_report/3_AdverseActionProcess_flowchart.htm

The agency will provide him with a written case that lays out the allegations and evidence. The case will be written in such a way to address the twelve Douglas Factors. The case is written by one member of the management team for the "deciding official" to make a determination - usually a division director or deputy director. To jump straight to termination recommendation is very serious. They are not even recommending suspension without pay, which means they think they have a very solid case.

I suspect your husband has been placed on administrative leave and is not going into the office. He's also likely locked out of email and federal systems (like timesheet/payroll), which makes it more difficult to mount a defense and collect evidence. You also need to realize that your husband may not be telling you the whole truth; he's putting the best possible spin on it.

Your husband will have 10-15 business days to review the case and consult with counsel. Then the agency's "deciding official" will hold a hearing with your husband, his counsel (if any) and the officials who proposed termination. Your husband can introduce evidence, request access to evidence, explain why this may be a mistake/misunderstanding, argue that the management officials have not met the Douglas Factors, and/or argue why termination is not appropriate (instead of suspension and restitution). If the deciding official deems termination to be the proper course of action, then it's official and your husband would need to appeal to Merit System Protection Board. However, once a case goes to the MSPB it becomes a public record and your husband's name will be on the Internet.
 
Often an agency will offer to allow a person to resign subject to a settlement agreement prior to going before the deciding official. This avoids a termination on his SF-50, which will help ensure future employment prospects with both the federal government and private sector. Of course, your husband gives up the right to sue the agency. If he decides to go the route of settlement and resignation, he should get absolute clarity from HR on how his SF-50 will be coded for his resignation. Highly recommend reading up on Clean Record Settlement Agreements: https://www.mspb.gov/studies/studies/Clean_Record_Settlement_Agreements_and_the_Law_938820.pdf

In addition to contacting a lawyer, I can also recommend these folks who often serve as expert witnesses hired by employment lawyers: https://informedfed.com/

Good luck with your case. I know this is all stressful and probably not what you want to hear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He should be able to get access to all of the evidence they intend to introduce at the termination hearing. Do that, see what they have on him. One thing I've learned is that unfortunately people lie.

pp here. They refused to provide me with any evidence. I also caught them in lies that I pointed out to them. None of it made a difference in the outcome.

A security clearance is different than timecard fraud. The government has a lot more leeway in denying a security clearance.

OP, he should definitely retain an attorney. The knives are out here. They are digging up records from almost two years ago and the allegation is that he was "unproductive." He's pissed someone off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He should be able to get access to all of the evidence they intend to introduce at the termination hearing. Do that, see what they have on him. One thing I've learned is that unfortunately people lie.

pp here. They refused to provide me with any evidence. I also caught them in lies that I pointed out to them. None of it made a difference in the outcome.

A security clearance is different than timecard fraud. The government has a lot more leeway in denying a security clearance.

OP, he should definitely retain an attorney. The knives are out here. They are digging up records from almost two years ago and the allegation is that he was "unproductive." He's pissed someone off.

Agree with this. Someone is looking for an excuse to axe him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They must really have it out for him if they went back to 2022. I'm curious how it came up. Your husband has been given a proposed "adverse action." You need to read about the process: https://www.mspb.gov/studies/adverse_action_report/3_AdverseActionProcess_flowchart.htm

The agency will provide him with a written case that lays out the allegations and evidence. The case will be written in such a way to address the twelve Douglas Factors. The case is written by one member of the management team for the "deciding official" to make a determination - usually a division director or deputy director. To jump straight to termination recommendation is very serious. They are not even recommending suspension without pay, which means they think they have a very solid case.

I suspect your husband has been placed on administrative leave and is not going into the office. He's also likely locked out of email and federal systems (like timesheet/payroll), which makes it more difficult to mount a defense and collect evidence. You also need to realize that your husband may not be telling you the whole truth; he's putting the best possible spin on it.

Your husband will have 10-15 business days to review the case and consult with counsel. Then the agency's "deciding official" will hold a hearing with your husband, his counsel (if any) and the officials who proposed termination. Your husband can introduce evidence, request access to evidence, explain why this may be a mistake/misunderstanding, argue that the management officials have not met the Douglas Factors, and/or argue why termination is not appropriate (instead of suspension and restitution). If the deciding official deems termination to be the proper course of action, then it's official and your husband would need to appeal to Merit System Protection Board. However, once a case goes to the MSPB it becomes a public record and your husband's name will be on the Internet.
 
Often an agency will offer to allow a person to resign subject to a settlement agreement prior to going before the deciding official. This avoids a termination on his SF-50, which will help ensure future employment prospects with both the federal government and private sector. Of course, your husband gives up the right to sue the agency. If he decides to go the route of settlement and resignation, he should get absolute clarity from HR on how his SF-50 will be coded for his resignation. Highly recommend reading up on Clean Record Settlement Agreements: https://www.mspb.gov/studies/studies/Clean_Record_Settlement_Agreements_and_the_Law_938820.pdf

In addition to contacting a lawyer, I can also recommend these folks who often serve as expert witnesses hired by employment lawyers: https://informedfed.com/

Good luck with your case. I know this is all stressful and probably not what you want to hear.

OP said there has been a year long investigation, so when they went back to 2022, it was only 2023.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He should be able to get access to all of the evidence they intend to introduce at the termination hearing. Do that, see what they have on him. One thing I've learned is that unfortunately people lie.

pp here. They refused to provide me with any evidence. I also caught them in lies that I pointed out to them. None of it made a difference in the outcome.

A security clearance is different than timecard fraud. The government has a lot more leeway in denying a security clearance.

OP, he should definitely retain an attorney. The knives are out here. They are digging up records from almost two years ago and the allegation is that he was "unproductive." He's pissed someone off.

I'm not OP.
No, Op said there has already been a year long investigation. So the allegations came about a year later (maybe? Depends on the month.)
Regardless, a year long investigation tells me they are making sure the evidence is solid and not doing this in haste.

So many people "work from home" but are dropping kids off at school, walking the dog, meeting a friend for lunch, etc. and it sounds like employers are starting to crack down.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I think your husband is lying to you. Think about evidence needed to get a time fraud case to the end (after a YEAR-LONG investigation!).

[Anonymous]

OP there is good advice on specifics above but bluntly something bigger is going on.

I am a fed and it's very rare for someone to be investigated for time and attendance fraud. Usually it's the way that they try to get rid of someone after they have already decided they want to terminate the person (but subjective criteria like performance are harder to prove). Plenty of people cut corners and no one is tracking their keystrokes. If you are basically a good employee getting work done, no one wants to fire you. You have to be a very low performer or non-performer or something else going on, for an investigation to be started.

You might know more and not want to share it here, totally fair. But I hope your DH is being forthcoming about what's actually at play here.