Federal agencies can indefinitely suspend an employee who they believe was involved in a crime, even before the person is found guilty – so long as they have been indicted by a grand jury.
MSPB - FEDagent - News for federal agents and 1811’s
After the Merit Systems Protection Board found that a retired federal employee failed to prove that the recovery of overpaid benefits from the Federal Employee Retirement System (“FERS”) would be against equity and good conscience, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the MSPB’s decision, finding that the Administrative Judge’s analysis (which the full Board accepted) was not supported by substantial evidence, was erroneous, and that recovery of the overpayment was unconscionable given the “inexplicable” three-year delay by OPM to finalize the retiree’s benefits, and the additional four-year delay between the retiree’s request for reconsideration and OPM’s decision.
A Program Analyst at the Department of Veterans Affairs was indicted by a Federal grand jury on 50 counts of making false statements related to health care matters.
A Veterans Affairs police officer was charged with lack of candor, among other charges and specifications, and although the Board sustained the employee’s removal, it reversed the charge of Lack of Candor, clarifying the law in the process.
A Special Agent at the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms filed an Individual Right of Action appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board, alleging that his supervisors retaliated against him after he disclosed his suspicion that another agent had improperly shot at a fleeing suspect, provided an inaccurate report of the shooting incident, and had committed perjury during the subsequent criminal trial.
In the first case argued before Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justices appeared to disagree about how to handle “mixed cases,” alleging both adverse employment actions against federal civil service employees and prohibited discrimination, where the Merit Systems Protection Board concludes it lacks jurisdiction because the employee was not subject to an appealable action.