table of penalties douglas factors

502, 508 (1994) (holding that because 31 U.S.C. Sample: If you need assistance in dealing with any personal matters, the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) is available to provide confidential counseling services. 1999) (holding that the Board inherited mitigation authority in misconduct actions from the old Civil Service Commission). In short: if youre facing removal leveraging the 12 Douglas Factors the right way could save your job. The thrust of this factor is that the more prominent the position, or more trust and power you hold in the position, the more seriously the agency is going to view any misconduct you engage in. Explanation, if relevant: (4) The employee's past work record, including length of service, performance on the job, ability to get along with fellow workers, and dependability.Relevant? The consistency of the penalty with any applicable Agency table of penalties; h. The notoriety of the offense or its impact upon the reputation of the Agency; . Yes___ No____Unusual job tensions, personality problems, mental impairment, harassment, or bad faith, malice, or provocation on the part of others involved in an incident are mitigating circumstances that should be reviewed. Managers should contact the OIG or law enforcement where criminal conduct is suspected or alleged. Cir. Factor 1: The nature and seriousness of the offense, and its relation to the employees duties, position, and responsibilities, including whether the offense was intentional or technical or inadvertent, or was committed maliciously or for gain, or was frequently repeated. Many agencies have tables of penalties and offenses that list common offenses and their typical discipline ranges. The reason(s) for this action is (are) specified below. 0 Cir. The Douglas Factors: Disciplining employees is a fact of life. The ranges of penalties shown in the Table are those that are considered to be most typical for offenses of the nature indicated. The use of a federal employees past disciplinary record is one of the more commonly cited Douglas factors. For example, we might argue that the lack of a clear agency policy on computer usage should result in mitigation of a penalty for an employee that has been charged with misuse of a government computer. When a federal employee faces discipline for misconduct, those determining the penalty must consider certain criteria known as the Douglas Factors. But you know one of your colleagues has recently missed a deadline of similar importance and was only issued a letter of reprimand. Consistency of the penalty is shorthand for: is the action we are taking in your case the same or similar to other cases with similar facts. Check with your labor relations advisor. The more notice you have of the prohibition on certain conduct the strongerargument management has for issuing discipline if you engage in that misconduct. On (DATE), you were scheduled to report to work at (TIME). Postal Service, 634 F.3d 1274, 1282 (Fed. In the case of Douglas vs. Veterans Administration, 5 MSPR 280 (1981), the . For example, one could argue that given the lack of prior discipline that a proposed removal should be mitigated to a suspension action. While some federal agencies attempt to use this Douglas factor in an effort to attempt to increase a federal employees disciplinary penalty, we have found that this factor is extremely helpful for purposes of a reduction in the employees penalty. You have the right to reply to this proposal orally and/or in writing and furnish any evidence in support of your reply within fifteen (15) calendar days after the date you receive this proposal. The Federal Starr is a publication by Starr Wright USA. Do not deny the existence of bad facts. Usually, the root cause of different treatment in terms of disciplinary penalties tends to be favoritism by the Agency between different federal employees. If you wish to explore legal representation, please call our office or use this form to inquire about our consultation process. Explanation, if relevant: (6) Consistency of the penalty with those imposed upon other employees for the same or similar offenses. A Table of Penalties is a list of . All other facts the same, you would want to point this inconsistency to managements attention because it is clear the two penalties are not consistent with each other. Generally, this argument is used by a federal employee to support a reduction in penalty based on their good record of service to their agency (e.g. Consideration may be given to extending this time limit if you submit a written request stating your reasons for needing more time. Douglas Factors for Federal Employees - berrylegal This factor looks to the status of the employee. Regardless, try to avoid getting into an argument with management over factors. 5'@ (Vl]\W[w:R`u>l/;EVj@n~: `;)v O Qf$CA| )cPp0cP?l1#`:}6X93q/r@ Oc2H))!Y6I $ (P Federal agencies may take disciplinary action against employees who engage in misconduct. If you have been disciplined before you will face harsher discipline going forward. These factors are the following: 1. See Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. For example, an allegation of dishonesty would be treated . The key is credibility. Performance-Based Actions under Chapters 43 and 75 of Title 5 - Similarities and Differences, Different Types of Adverse Actions Use Different Rules, Legal Sources for the Right to Notice and a Meaningful Opportunity to Reply, Decision-Maker Must Listen and Have Power to Decide, Connecting the Job and the Offense ("Nexus"), Labels are Not Required, but if Used They Must be Proven, How Employees Become Similarly Situated for Purposes of an Adverse Action Penalty, Avoid Facilitating Prohibited Personnel Practices (PPPs), Agency Officials' Substantive and Procedural Errors and How to Fix Them, Identifying Probationers and Their Rights, The Limited Powers of the U.S. This one is pretty self-explanatory. What is the table of penalties? - idswater.com The nature and seriousness of the offense, and its relation to the employees duties, position, and responsibilities, including whether the offense was intentional or technical or inadvertent, or was committed maliciously or for gain, or was frequently repeated; the employees job level and type of employment, including supervisory or fiduciary role, contacts with the public, and prominence of the position; the employees past work record, including length of service, performance on the job, ability to get along with fellow workers, and dependability; the effect of the offense upon the employees ability to perform at a satisfactory level and its effect upon supervisors confidence in the employees work ability to perform assigned duties; consistency of the penalty with those imposed upon other employees for the same or similar offenses; consistency of the penalty with any applicable agency table of penalties; the notoriety of the offense or its impact upon the reputation of the agency; the clarity with which the employee was on notice of any rules that were violated in committing the offense, or had been warned about the conduct in question; the potential for the employees rehabilitation; mitigating circumstances surrounding the offense such as unusual job tensions, personality problems, mental impairment, harassment, or bad faith, malice or provocation on the part of others involved in the matter; and. After you have this list it should become pretty clear to you which Douglas Factors you want to focus on with management. 280 (at 305-6), 1981 MSPB Lexis 886 (at *38-9). The Douglas factors are critical for federal employees facing a pending disciplinary action or for those at the MSPB on appeal. Knowing what managers are looking for will aid your oral reply presentation, and could be what saves you your job with the federal government. Conversely, aggravating factors are those that suggest the discipline be sustained or even increased. Non-disciplinary counseling, guidance memoranda, provision of Agency policy to the employee and requiring the reading and signing of certain rules are methods to communicate what are the requirements of conduct in the workplace. Generally, this factor tends to be used more by a federal agency to aggravate (increase) the proposed disciplinary penalty. What kind of recovery can I get in my discrimination case? 10 Ward v. U.S. Producing a doctors note to management confirming the hospitalization supports the validity of your claim and will be harder for management to overlook than had you just made a verbal assertion of the same. The argument for mitigation here is that the federal employee continued to work in their normal position while the investigation was ongoing. The range of penalties described in the Table is intended to serve as a guide to discipline, not a rigid standard, and deviations are allowable for a variety of reasons. yQB9RR_C}xxx+i$yyyzy^*UTTq^yu! If you are a unionized employee, typically someone in your bargaining unit will help you argue your case to management at your oral reply. past performance). { v v _ lv lv lv Y Y S{ d lv lv lv 9w 9w 9w 9w d= BB 1 BB Proposed Disciplinary/Adverse Action Worksheet 1.DATE: (OF PROPOSAL MEMORANDUM) TO: (NAME), (POSITION) FROM: (NAME), (ORGANIZATIONAL TITLE) Must be signed by Proposing Official2.SUBJECT: Notice of Proposed (SUSPENSION OF (#) DAYS, CHANGE TO LOWER GRADE, REMOVAL)3.Paragraph Purpose of the Memorandum Sample: This is notice that I propose that you be (suspended for XX days, changed to lower grade, removed from your position and from Federal service) no earlier than 30 days from your receipt of this notice. The Douglas Factors get their name from a 1981 MSPB decision holding that the MSPB would review an agency's penalty selection by applying factors that since have become known by the last name of the appellant, whose removal was upheld after the factors were applied. Consistency of the penalty with any applicable agency table of penalties; (8) The notoriety of the offense or its impact upon the reputation . Postal Service, 634 F.3d 1274, 1279 (Fed. Explanation, if relevant: (3) The employee's past disciplinary record.Relevant? COPYRIGHT 2023. PDF Chapter 4. Hud Table of Offenses and Penalties If you can make a strong enough case the Administrative Judge (AJ) may modify or cancel the discipline in your case. If the person signed for receipt of the letter include that information. Factor 8: The notoriety of the offense or its impact upon the reputation of the agency. %%EOF However, the principle of "like penalties for like offenses" does not require perfect consistency. Management has likely even required you to review the table and sign a form asserting your knowledge of it. In some instances, however, an employees misconduct will be so severe its obvious they cant be rehabilitated and brought back on the job. You and your representative, if an agency employee, will be allowed a reasonable amount of official time to assist you in your reply, to review the material relied upon to support the reason for the proposed action, and to prepare and present your written and/or oral reply. On the surface, many incidents of misconduct may seem to be similar. Reviewing thesetwelve factors in a vacuum is not useful to you as an employee, or tomanagers who are trying to make a decision about a specific disciplinarycase. After reading this guide, if you want to read further on the topic of federal employee discipline, you mayfind our guide toMSPB and discipline cases helpful. For example, an allegation of dishonesty would be treated more seriously, under this Douglas factor, for a federal employee that holds a law enforcement position. So, if your case was publicized or brought shame and negative attention to the agency you can expert a more severe penalty. An official website of the United States government. Any replies submitted will be given full consideration. Alcohol-related: (1) Unauthorized possession of alcoholic beverages while on VA premises. Relevant? 12.Provision of Information Relied Upon Paragraph: Generally, the material (evidence such as witness statements, policies, regulations and the like) should be referenced and attached to the proposal. Lets say you missed a deadline for an important assignment and management has proposed removal. Nor can it be doubted that the federal courts have regarded that authority as properly within the Commissions power. Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. In cases of federal employee misconduct, each of these factors must be considered by those who are tasked with determining an appropriate penalty. Table 1-1: Table of Penalties for Various Offenses The following Table of Penalties is found in Army Regulations Online: AR 690-700, Chapter 751. %PDF-1.5 PDF Table of Penalties for Title 5, Hybrid Title 38, and Title 38 Employees DOC Proposed Disciplinary/Adverse Action Worksheet - FedSmith.com 280, 302 (1981). A deciding official must consider specific factors in determining the reasonableness of the penalty. This table should be available to you as an employee. Factor 9: The clarity with which the employee was on notice of any rules that were violated in committing the offense, or had been warned about the conduct in question. generadores de diesel precios generadores de diesel precios Home Realizacje i porady Bez kategorii generadores de diesel precios The final Douglas Factor asks both manager and employee to consider alternative penalties. Starr Wright USA a marketing name for Starr Wright Insurance Agency, Inc. and its affiliate(s). 6.Further Charges and Specifications: Repeat above format 7.Efficiency of the Service Rationale Paragraph(s): This paragraph typically includes the answers to the following questions: What rule(s) was (were) violated? Explanation, if relevant: (12) The adequacy and effectiveness of alternative sanctions to deter such conduct in the future by the employee or others.Relevant? Once an employee has a disciplinary record, its harder to defend against new charges of misconduct and more difficult to argue that a mitigated penalty is deserved. These 12 factors play a key role in the outcome of federal employee discipline cases. 1985). 1349(b) requires a suspension of not less than one month for the use of a Government vehicle for other than an official purpose, and the appellants actions were closely analogous, it would be inappropriate for the Board to scrutinize whether the agencys penalty of a 30-day suspension was warranted). PDF Douglas Factors In Depth - Letter Carrier Connection The Douglas factors 8. When these expectations are not met as a result of an employee's misconduct, the reputation of the Agency may be tarnished. More significant discipline is referred to as an adverse action, which entails suspensions of more than 14 days, reductions in grade or pay, furloughs of 30 days or less, or removals. The first time an employee is Such cases call into question an employees ability to perform their specific job duties with integrity. Your unauthorized absence required other employees to be responsible for accomplishing your work on the days you were absence. However, the seriousness of the offense and an evaluation of other Douglas Factors may outweigh an employee's positive work record. It is often the case that a federal employee has been charged with a violation of agency rules but has not been properly trained with respect to these rules or regulations. To some extent, this is a subjective question. 8 Lachance v. Devall, 178 F.3d 1246, 1260 (Fed. ?Y9"0t@_, l 3bNC+ sj2 *+2UjBu^sW6\ r 72 0 obj <>stream You should review the table to make sure that your discipline is in keeping with this table. Fighting Title 31 Currency Seizures issued by CBP, New executive order on anti-dumping and countervailing duties, Roberts v. DHS A pro se challenge to the Global Entry Program, Q & A with a Merit Systems Protection Board Representative, Fighting a Failure to Declare Penalty (19 USC 1497) issued by CBP. The Douglas factors are: (1) The nature and seriousness of the offense, and its relation to the employee's duties, position, and responsibilities, including whether the offense was intentional or technical or inadvertent, or was committed maliciously or for gain, or was frequently repeated; 2012) (internal citations and punctuation omitted). This factor is one of the least significant of the Douglas Factors and is usually considered as aggravating. . An employee with a significant disciplinary record most likely would have poor potential for rehabilitation. The Douglas Factors include: The nature and seriousness of the offense, and its relation to the employee's duties, position, and responsibilities, including whether the offense was intentional or technical or inadvertent, or was committed maliciously or for gain, or was frequently repeated. Employees should be aware that managers sometimes use a Douglas Factors Checklist that helps then analyze and consider each factor. This factor is generally an afterthought for both management and employees. In these circumstances, appropriate analysis of this factor may result in considering a more severe penalty. h[M+}LX,? Ultimately, the more credible evidence you can provide to support your position the better. Misconduct and Discipline | U.S. Department of the Interior This guide has beenprepared by an attorney with extensive experience practicing before the MSPB, both as a representative of federal agencies, and as a representative of federal employees. The twelve factors, as determined by the Merit Systems Protection Board, that must be considered in any federal employees discipline case are: Now, lets take a closer look at each factor individually.



Ohio Community Garage Sales 2020, Northwest Correctional Complex Stabbing, Articles T