|
''Curtis Douglas vs. Veterans Administration'' (5 Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), 313 (1981) was a case decided by the Merit Systems Protection Board which established criteria that supervisors must consider in determining an appropriate penalty to impose for an act of federal employee misconduct.〔(HOLST V. DEPT. OF VETERANS AFFAIRS )〕〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=CURTIS DOUGLAS v. VETERANS ADMINISTRATION )〕 ==The case== The original case decided by the MSPB involved seven employees and four different United States Government employers.〔In addition to Douglas, the other employees were Joseph E. Cicero (also a Veterans Administration employee), Douglas C. Jackson and James K. Anderson (civilian employees of the Department of the Air Force), Luis A. Jimenez (a civilian employee of the Department of the Army), and John Nocifore and John Dennis (civilian employees of the Department of the Navy).〕 All seven employees were terminated by their respective employers for "job-related misconduct under 5 U.S.C. 7513".〔 Douglas was terminated for being absent without leave, being away from his duty station without authorization, and selling his employment services to a fellow employee. Cicero was terminated for failure to comply with supervisory direction. Jackson was terminated for misrepresenting that he was enrolled in a night college class to obtain a day shift assignment. Anderson was terminated for failure to request leave due to chronic foot problems. Jimenez was terminated for unauthorized use of a government vehicle. Nocifore and Dennis were terminated for theft of government property. All but one employee appealed to the MSPB on the grounds that the punishment was too severe.〔Cicero argued that the work he was accused of not performing had been performed by another employee before he could get to it.〕 Initially, the MSPB's presiding officials sided with the employers on the grounds that selection of a penalty was a matter of agency discretion. However, the MSPB reopened the case, and requested comments via the Federal Register as to whether 1) the preponderance of the evidence standard was the appropriate standard to determine whether an agency-imposed sanction should be sustained, and 2) whether the MSPB had the authority to modify a punishment if it determined "the penalty does not promote the efficiency of the service". In its opinion the MSPB made the following determinations: #In a jurisdictional matter, the MSPB ruled that, as the successor to the Civil Service Commission, it had the same authority to mitigate penalties as the Commission previously held. #The MSPB ruled that agencies had the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the punishment fit the circumstances. In doing so, the MSPB outlined a non-exhaustive list of factors, which may be aggravating and/or mitigating depending on the circumstances (commonly referred to as "Douglas factors", see below) that agencies were to consider. #The MSPB upheld the terminations for five of the seven employees.〔The terminations of Douglas, Cicero, Jackson, Nocifore, and Dennis were upheld. Anderson's termination was vacated and reduced by the MSPB to a 30-day suspension; Jimenez's termination was vacated and remanded to the MSPB's New York Field Office for further findings.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Douglas v. Veterans Administration」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|