Proposal for termination from a federal agency

[Anonymous]

Strongly recommend Gilbert Law Firm. Link a few post up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Strongly recommend Gilbert Law Firm. Link a few post up.

Thank you Mr. Gilbert.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your husband is lying to you. Time theft is very easy to prove. They will have multiple people look over it as well. You will not get to see all the evidence, but rest assured, it's there.

He likely has extremely poor work product and this is what they can fire him for instead. At home is your DH a super hard worker who is consistently on time? I doubt it.

Lastly, I saw a case of sexual harassment that was pretty egregious. The wife came after me at a restaurant several weeks later and told me how outrageous it was that her dh was fired for time fraud. I didn't say a word, but time fraud wasn't even investigated. He'd lied to his wife completely.

That part isn't true, they have to provide in advance all of the evidence that they intend to introduce at the hearing. Whatever else there is isn't really that relevant other than I suppose her DH will have a target on his back going forward if the proposed termination does not succeed. It is also possible her DH is lying to her, she will probably never know if that is the case unless the hearing is virtual and she observes.

This is not true with failed security reinvestigations. They are not obligated to provide any of the evidence to the employee or to the people making the personnel decision.

Interesting re. Security Clearances. I’ve been a background check person several times over the years (they call me and ask questions about the person getting clearance) and for the past few years they have a blanket statement at the beginning saying everything I relate can be accessible to the person getting a clearance. As a result I end up choosing my words very carefully.

It can be accessible, but that doesn’t mean it will be. They can do whatever they want and there’s no accountability.

I’ve personally experienced zero due process and I personally know of people who have experienced discrimination based on their ethnic and religious background. There’s absolutely nothing anyone can do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your husband is lying to you. Time theft is very easy to prove. They will have multiple people look over it as well. You will not get to see all the evidence, but rest assured, it's there.

He likely has extremely poor work product and this is what they can fire him for instead. At home is your DH a super hard worker who is consistently on time? I doubt it.

Lastly, I saw a case of sexual harassment that was pretty egregious. The wife came after me at a restaurant several weeks later and told me how outrageous it was that her dh was fired for time fraud. I didn't say a word, but time fraud wasn't even investigated. He'd lied to his wife completely.

That part isn't true, they have to provide in advance all of the evidence that they intend to introduce at the hearing. Whatever else there is isn't really that relevant other than I suppose her DH will have a target on his back going forward if the proposed termination does not succeed. It is also possible her DH is lying to her, she will probably never know if that is the case unless the hearing is virtual and she observes.

This is not true with failed security reinvestigations. They are not obligated to provide any of the evidence to the employee or to the people making the personnel decision.

Interesting re. Security Clearances. I’ve been a background check person several times over the years (they call me and ask questions about the person getting clearance) and for the past few years they have a blanket statement at the beginning saying everything I relate can be accessible to the person getting a clearance. As a result I end up choosing my words very carefully.

As far as I know, you can always FOIA your background investigation file. I have mine.

Yep, me too. I think PP is talking about the decision of the adjudicator. Maybe one person says you're a corrupt AH and everyone else says you're great. I don't think you're going to get information on how the adjudicator weighed the testimony of each person they interviewed.

I’m talking about the evidence of my alleged wrongdoings — aka, the reason I failed my reinvestigation.

I asked for the evidence (ex: the emails I supposedly sent) and was told:

- I cannot see it

- my lawyer cannot see it

- the people who made the decision to put me on leave and ultimately fire me did not see it

I only saw a vague list that said things like “you sent an email about x topic that was deemed to contain confidential information.”

I also identified lies in the document they provided me. They accused me of calling myself a federal government employee to a local news outlet. That in itself wouldn’t have even been against the rules, but I didn’t even do that. I showed it to them in my appeals process and it made zero difference in their ultimate decision about me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Agree. Really, most feds engage in some form of time fraud here and there. To go after one of us is odd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your husband is lying to you. Time theft is very easy to prove. They will have multiple people look over it as well. You will not get to see all the evidence, but rest assured, it's there.

He likely has extremely poor work product and this is what they can fire him for instead. At home is your DH a super hard worker who is consistently on time? I doubt it.

Lastly, I saw a case of sexual harassment that was pretty egregious. The wife came after me at a restaurant several weeks later and told me how outrageous it was that her dh was fired for time fraud. I didn't say a word, but time fraud wasn't even investigated. He'd lied to his wife completely.

That part isn't true, they have to provide in advance all of the evidence that they intend to introduce at the hearing. Whatever else there is isn't really that relevant other than I suppose her DH will have a target on his back going forward if the proposed termination does not succeed. It is also possible her DH is lying to her, she will probably never know if that is the case unless the hearing is virtual and she observes.

This is not true with failed security reinvestigations. They are not obligated to provide any of the evidence to the employee or to the people making the personnel decision.

Interesting re. Security Clearances. I’ve been a background check person several times over the years (they call me and ask questions about the person getting clearance) and for the past few years they have a blanket statement at the beginning saying everything I relate can be accessible to the person getting a clearance. As a result I end up choosing my words very carefully.

As far as I know, you can always FOIA your background investigation file. I have mine.

Yep, me too. I think PP is talking about the decision of the adjudicator. Maybe one person says you're a corrupt AH and everyone else says you're great. I don't think you're going to get information on how the adjudicator weighed the testimony of each person they interviewed.

I’m talking about the evidence of my alleged wrongdoings — aka, the reason I failed my reinvestigation.

I asked for the evidence (ex: the emails I supposedly sent) and was told:

- I cannot see it

- my lawyer cannot see it

- the people who made the decision to put me on leave and ultimately fire me did not see it

I only saw a vague list that said things like “you sent an email about x topic that was deemed to contain confidential information.”

I also identified lies in the document they provided me. They accused me of calling myself a federal government employee to a local news outlet. That in itself wouldn’t have even been against the rules, but I didn’t even do that. I showed it to them in my appeals process and it made zero difference in their ultimate decision about me.

former employment attorney here. I have seen what you are saying - the claim that an employee disclosed confidential information even when it was clearly untrue (like, put two disparate pieces of public information together in a way they claim became classified). Attorneys not allowed to see it. It was part of a broader effort to get rid of a troublesome employee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s crazy that some posters are blaming the agency because you have to be a pretty bad employee to get fired from the federal government. No sympathies here. It more like, it’s been a long time coming.

You can also run afoul of the wrong supervisor or team leader all while being a solid employee. It's shocking how territorial and spiteful some employees become, and once they get an ounce of power, they start raining it down on everyone they can. I've seen the belly of the snake and it isn't pretty.

+100. I left my last agency because of this. some of those people were relentless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s crazy that some posters are blaming the agency because you have to be a pretty bad employee to get fired from the federal government. No sympathies here. It more like, it’s been a long time coming.

You can also run afoul of the wrong supervisor or team leader all while being a solid employee. It's shocking how territorial and spiteful some employees become, and once they get an ounce of power, they start raining it down on everyone they can. I've seen the belly of the snake and it isn't pretty.

Amen to this. There are some monstrous jackals out there.

Yeah, my DH had a crazy fed boss who was clearly gearing up to fire him once. Fortunately he got out quickly and has been very successful in the years since and that crazy boss got person after person fired or drove them out until crazy boss was finally yanked from a supervisory position years later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your husband is lying to you. Time theft is very easy to prove. They will have multiple people look over it as well. You will not get to see all the evidence, but rest assured, it's there.

He likely has extremely poor work product and this is what they can fire him for instead. At home is your DH a super hard worker who is consistently on time? I doubt it.

Lastly, I saw a case of sexual harassment that was pretty egregious. The wife came after me at a restaurant several weeks later and told me how outrageous it was that her dh was fired for time fraud. I didn't say a word, but time fraud wasn't even investigated. He'd lied to his wife completely.

That part isn't true, they have to provide in advance all of the evidence that they intend to introduce at the hearing. Whatever else there is isn't really that relevant other than I suppose her DH will have a target on his back going forward if the proposed termination does not succeed. It is also possible her DH is lying to her, she will probably never know if that is the case unless the hearing is virtual and she observes.

This is not true with failed security reinvestigations. They are not obligated to provide any of the evidence to the employee or to the people making the personnel decision.

Interesting re. Security Clearances. I’ve been a background check person several times over the years (they call me and ask questions about the person getting clearance) and for the past few years they have a blanket statement at the beginning saying everything I relate can be accessible to the person getting a clearance. As a result I end up choosing my words very carefully.

As far as I know, you can always FOIA your background investigation file. I have mine.

Yep, me too. I think PP is talking about the decision of the adjudicator. Maybe one person says you're a corrupt AH and everyone else says you're great. I don't think you're going to get information on how the adjudicator weighed the testimony of each person they interviewed.

I’m talking about the evidence of my alleged wrongdoings — aka, the reason I failed my reinvestigation.

I asked for the evidence (ex: the emails I supposedly sent) and was told:

- I cannot see it

- my lawyer cannot see it

- the people who made the decision to put me on leave and ultimately fire me did not see it

I only saw a vague list that said things like “you sent an email about x topic that was deemed to contain confidential information.”

I also identified lies in the document they provided me. They accused me of calling myself a federal government employee to a local news outlet. That in itself wouldn’t have even been against the rules, but I didn’t even do that. I showed it to them in my appeals process and it made zero difference in their ultimate decision about me.

former employment attorney here. I have seen what you are saying - the claim that an employee disclosed confidential information even when it was clearly untrue (like, put two disparate pieces of public information together in a way they claim became classified). Attorneys not allowed to see it. It was part of a broader effort to get rid of a troublesome employee.

But I had absolutely stellar performance reviews. So I don’t know how I could have been seen as troublesome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds odd- usually T &A fraud is cut and dry. I think there are missing parts to this story. I have almost 29 years as a federal manager and honestly it is very difficult to fire someone. If they are proposing termination the employee probably deserves it.

I know for a fact that people do not always deserve it.

+1
if a federal manager wants to get rid of an employee, and has support from corrupted administrative and legal sources, hell ya you're gone. Ask me how I know. Government administrative processes are ripe for misuse. Administrative processes: firing an employee, offering Union 'help', appeals, MSPB. The only way you might have recourse is legally, and that costs oodles of money and time when an employee has no job. So shitty federal managers take others' jobs for whatever reason - promote a friend, free up budget, they don't like you, it's Friday and 'm bored. They're pretty sure to get away with it, the admins in the agency have done it many times. They laugh at employees losing jobs - I witnessed it.

[Anonymous]

Time fraud is easy to allege, and the way that many an employee has been easily let go of a federal position. I was always careful that my swipes and log ins evidenced a bit more than 8 hours work. My agency loved to use it as needed to remove people. Even a few minutes.