The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found lawful an agency’s decision to propose a new termination action while still pursuing its appeal of its first termination action.

In a recent decision, the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) added a new element of proof to sustain a performance-based adverse action with an appeal: prior accountability.

When an employee exhausts administrative remedies through the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), they gain the right to appeal directly to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

An Army doctor working in Germany testified in an internal investigation that the commanding officer of the Army hospital harassed his wife and intimidated him at a hospital function after his wife complained about the care she received.

A federal judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied a federal employee’s motion for a temporary restraining order to enjoin enforcement of the President’s executive orders.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that sovereign immunity protected the government from such a suit.

A passport specialist at the Department of State (DOS) has argued that his fully successful performance evaluation should be considered as evidence that he consistently followed instructions.

On October 8, 2021, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that federal employees can be fired for one e-mail, if the e-mail is sufficiently disrespectful. The employee appealed his removal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

Regarding the “enforcement” of COVID-19 vaccine,. the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) advises agencies begin the disciplinary process as early as November 9, 2021.

On September 9, 2021, President Biden issued an “Executive Order on Requiring Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination for Federal Employees,” an executive order “requir[ing] COVID-19 vaccination for all Federal employees, subject to such exceptions as required by law.”

In two opinions issued on August 12, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the Department of Veterans Affairs erroneously interpreted the provisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017 when disciplining its employees. The purpose of the 2017 law, codified at 38 U.S.C. § 714, was to provide for expedited discipline of VA employees, strip MSPB of its authority to mitigate the VA’s chosen penalty, and to impose a less rigorous burden of proof on the agency at the appellate level than a traditional MSPB appeal.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit described the litigation of a case it adjudicated on May 14, 2021 as “the decade-long journey of a hard-working man who served his country honorably, only to face workplace discrimination on the basis of that service.” In its opinion, the Federal Circuit held that the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) erred in finding that the candidate’s nonselection for a position at the Department of the Navy would have occurred “regardless of his prior military service.”

On March 22, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid.

Before a federal employee can be terminated for unacceptable performance, the employing agency must provide the employee with an opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance.

A VA police officer was removed by the Department of Veterans Affairs under the 2017 “accountability” law 38 U.S.C. § 714 that limited review of VA’s actions against general schedule employees. The removal was based on conduct occurring prior to the enactment of the law. The employee appealed to the MSPB, and the MSPB affirmed the removal. On December 7, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated the MSPB’s decision, and remanded the case to the MSPB with instructions to remand the case further back to the agency.

On November 3, 2020, the United States Office of Special Counsel (OSC) announced that it had reached two agreements with the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE). A statement by OSC claimed that the “core goals of the agreements are to protect the independence of the respective Inspectors General and provide better outcomes to whistleblowers who report allegations of wrongdoing by OIGs.” The agreements are “the result of a years-long effort to clarify standards of procedure for such disclosures.”

An NCIS investigations specialist filed suit, alleging that NCIS erroneously classified him as exempt from overtime pay, and for years denied him overtime compensation and premium pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). On September 24, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of Federal Claims’ decision, after a trial, to deny liquidated damages, despite finding that NCIS was liable for incorrectly classifying the position as FLSA-exempt.

On August 31, 2020, in a 2-1 decision after a remand from the en banc court, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives (“Judiciary Committee”) had no valid cause of action to enforce its subpoena for executive branch records related to former White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn, II, where the Executive Branch blocked McGahn’s testimony and asserted “absolute testimonial immunity.”

A dual-status military technician, whose position was partially civilian and partially military, appealed his termination for failing to maintain membership in the National Guard, a prerequisite to his dual-status appointment under 32 U.S.C. § 709(b), to the Merit Systems Protection Board. The MSPB took jurisdiction and heard the case on the merits, ultimately affirming the termination. The employee petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for review. On August 21, 2020, the appeals court vacated the MSPB decision, finding that the Board did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal in the first place.

On August 6, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that the federal judiciary has been charging unlawfully excessive fees for access to records through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system.