5'@ (Vl]\W[w:R`u>l/;EVj@n~: `;)v O Qf$CA|
)cPp0cP?l1#`:}6X93q/r@ Oc2H))!Y6I $ (P Relevant? Managers must also consider the scope of the misconduct in the context of an employees position and job duties. 1.1 The twelve keys to the outcome of your discipline case 1.2 Background - Source of The Douglas Factors 1.3 The Douglas Factors 1.4 Analysis and Explanation of each Douglas Factor Generally, the ranges of penalties are fairly broad (e.g., Letter of Reprimand to Proposed Removal). 1 0 obj
If not, include delivery confirmation by the postal or delivery service. Did the employee have access to a handbook that detailed proper procedure and policy? Did management send out a memo clarifying rules? Generally, however, this Douglas factor is argued for the purposes of arguing for a less severe penalty. Contact your employee relations advisor to get the information to fill in the blanks. 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? When a federal employee faces discipline for misconduct, those determining the penalty must consider certain criteria known as the Douglas Factors. A knowledge of the Douglas Factors is helpful for both federal employees and managers. Similar offenses can be used to guide penalty selection. For instance, in the disciplinary cases that we handle we might attempt to seek mitigation of a proposed disciplinary penalty by arguing that an employees outstanding performance (e.g., performance ratings, commendations/awards and letters from supervisors/co-workers) during their years of service support a reduction in a disciplinary penalty. 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. The FAA's Table of Penalties recognizes the use of dissimilar offenses in prior discipline in determining the penalty. If you want you can download and read the fullDouglas v. V.A. That translates into harsher penalties for repeat offenders. This factor lends itself most to employees arguing for leniency in their case. The table of penalties can be a useful guide to an agency's wishes, but remember, the Merit Systems Protection Board has the final say. An overlooked factabout the cost of hiring an attorney is that they can actually save you money. For the employee, how you articulate and present the facts of yourcase greatly affect how management applies the Douglas Factors. A final decision will not be made in this matter until your written and/or oral replies have been received and considered, or, if no reply is received, until after the time specified for the replies has passed. Don't force misconduct into a listed offense unless it accurately fits. However, if you properly argue this factor it can go a long way towards helping your case. 4 0 obj
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. Factor: Consistency with table of penalties 2. Relevant? The right to answer orally does not include the right to a formal hearing with examination of witnesses. 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. Yes___
No____In order to use prior discipline as a basis to enhance a current penalty, three criteria must be met. Factor 6: Consistency of the penalty with those imposed upon other employees for the same or similar offenses. If this is impractical to do, use Sample 2. In 1981, the Douglas vs. Veterans Administration (5 MSPR 280) case laid out 12 criteria now known as the Douglas Factors that the U.S. Deciding officials should do a Douglas analysis in every case, except when Congress . If a mitigation argument does not fit under the other 11 Douglas factors, it can, in most instances, be argued here. If you are a federal manager reading this article, it will help you understand the kind of analysis you should be engaging inwhen you apply the 12 Douglas Factors to the specific facts of a discipline case. Private sector cases are drastically different. This factor is one of the least significant of the Douglas Factors and is usually considered as aggravating. For example, an allegation of dishonesty would be treated . Negligent or accidental incidents will be viewed more favorably than intentional acts. the case of Douglas vs. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. Sample:
Specification #1. generadores de diesel precios generadores de diesel precios Home Realizacje i porady Bez kategorii generadores de diesel precios If the action is less than a removal, add:
Further misconduct on your part may result in disciplinary action up to and including removal from your position and from Federal service. Bk|8AAoq':#@-zSs)@yFAaH=p.GNXQKAr{D$Xjuk.ku
u4RunO|zSp :*NPS0EI]9w]qk.9r>?^|xPG/~A}zI}Nw/o~SBE4*8VT?icyyrl9/srOW#L9}%N%NN}L;=+xoiE94f}9qnF~{15 PxBOGy:#/ This is because it puts you on notice of the penalties which is factor #9, below. If an offense results in a loss of trust or an employee isnt willing to be accountable for their actions, managers may not be willing to take the chance. Additionally, this factor looks at intent. Consistency of the penalty with any table of penalties an agency may have . Some federal employees have successfully argued for mitigation where stress or an anxiety condition contributed to the disciplinary misconduct issues. Management has likely even required you to review the table and sign a form asserting your knowledge of it. U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240. If you are looking for a representative, note that we are not taking on any cases at this time. Cir. Lets sayyou are facing a long suspension for showing up late to work for a long period of time because you are a recovering alcoholic and fell off the wagon for a few months. 280 (1981) These factors are used to explain why the penalty was chosen. Check with your labor relations advisor. * Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. Managers must take an employees propensity for rehabilitation into account. 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. 14.CC:s
CCs always include the deciding official and may include a human resources office official and/or legal counsel in accordance with your Agencys practice.CC:
PAGE
PAGE 9
/ 0 1 2 3 ? See Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. Additionally statements from managers or co-workers as to your ability and integrity will be helpful. 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. In cases of federal employee misconduct, each of these factors must be considered by those who are tasked with determining an appropriate penalty. This has often been considered one of the most important Douglas factors by the MSPB. Factor 7: Consistency of the penalty with any applicable agency table of penalties. On (DATE), you were scheduled to report to work at (TIME). With policies that cover up to $2,000,000 in liability coverage and up to $400,000 in administrative defense coverage, and a team of former Assistant US Attorneys and Federal Employees, Starr Wright USA will be your trusted advocate throughout the entire process. Cir. Breaking an obscure rule will be viewed less harshly than breaking one that is well publicized, and particularly one on which the employee was given specific notice. 11700 Plaza America Drive In contrast, an employee with multiple priorcases of discipline is likely to face a much greater amount of discipline owing to that factor alone. The first factor looks at the severity of the misconduct and how itrelates to the position the employee has. @ Q W % & ' ( ) * P X }ppfU h
hu CJ OJ QJ ^J aJ hu OJ QJ ^J h hu OJ QJ ^J hV h
OJ QJ ^J hG CJ OJ QJ ^J aJ hG hG CJ OJ QJ ^J aJ hG OJ QJ ^J h
OJ QJ ^J h58 OJ QJ ^J hV hV OJ QJ ^J h5U OJ QJ ^J h hV OJ QJ ^J hV h5U hV CJ OJ QJ ^J aJ / 0 3 Y | & t z kd $$If l 0 . If you list a factor you must explain why it is relevant. If, for example, management had sent a memo to all employees explaining the rules and potential discipline for the personal use ofoffice supplies and then two weeks later your took three reams of paper and a stapler home with you, management would have a strong argument that you were on notice and still engaged in the misconduct. 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. 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. Plaza America A mitigating factor is one that suggests the discipline be mitigated, or lowered. The Douglas factors are also referred to as mitigating factors. Note. Additionally, the Board cannot review the reasonableness of a penalty that is set by law. [;C;@){
:@H- - 3VLL
L.L.q^h8N),H3q30 (
Yet surprisingly, most non-managerial federal employees have no knowledge of these important factors until they themselves are facing discipline. Merit Systems Protection Board still follows today. Those in positions of higher levels of trust and authority, such as supervisors, are held to a greater level of accountability than those in non-supervisory positions. We need to specifically state why there is erosion of supervisory confidence. Such cases call into question an employees ability to perform their specific job duties with integrity. Ultimately, managers are people too. 1999). Your unauthorized absence cannot be tolerated because Agency supervisors, managers must be able to plan your work and rely on you to be available. An example of a mitigating factor would be having no prior discipline in a 20 year federal career when applying Douglas Factors #3 and #4. 4 Archuleta v. Hopper, 786 F.3d 1340, 1352 (Fed. If you were going through a divorce, your child was hospitalized, or a family member had passed away, you should be explaining these mitigating factors to management. -What kind of recovery can I get in my discrimination case? 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. B !p$p$p$pV0.Au KW !%K i%H+AZ JV i%H+AZ JV,`{%+^ JW`{%+^ JW`{%+xX`{%+^ JW9 8p8?0g#