Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

VA (Department of Veterans Affairs)

The United States has the most comprehensive system of assistance for veterans of any nation in the world. This benefits system traces its roots back to 1636, when the Pilgrims of Plymouth Colony were at war with the Pequot Indians. The Pilgrims passed a law which stated that disabled soldiers would be supported by the colony. The establishment of the Veterans Administration came in 1930 when Congress authorized the President to "consolidate and coordinate Government activities affecting war veterans."

This forum also includes the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).

Perhaps you are working for the VA or interested in working for the VA. Here is a forum to share your experience with the VA.

2 Pages12>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Random Sentient Being  
#1 Posted : Monday, May 01, 2017 2:01:27 PM(UTC)
Random Sentient Being

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 4/29/2017(UTC)
Posts: 3
United States

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
A colleague was recently terminated a day prior to the completion of his probationary period. The termination came as a complete shock to our section, considering the employee just received outstanding performance marks across the board on his evaluation. That evaluation was just two weeks ago. This employee was stellar and had no disciplinary history whatsoever. He declined, as advised by the Union, to resign and and was simply terminated for failure to complete the probationary period trial. I know his options are limited as far as the MSPB goes, but there has to be some mechanism in place, right? He is a 100% disabled veteran and had a history of using sick leave to deal with service-connected ailments, but all of that was approved through management officials.


Any help would appreciated. As an employee who is vested in the system, it kills me to see this happen to a colleague/disabled veteran.

Edited by user Monday, May 01, 2017 2:19:27 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks 1 user thanked Random Sentient Being for this useful post.
Richard Hertz on 5/13/2017(UTC)
frankgonzalez  
#2 Posted : Tuesday, May 02, 2017 2:40:55 AM(UTC)
frankgonzalez

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 4,226

Thanks: 40 times
Was thanked: 682 time(s) in 520 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Random Sentient Being Go to Quoted Post
A colleague was recently terminated a day prior to the completion of his probationary period. The termination came as a complete shock to our section, considering the employee just received outstanding performance marks across the board on his evaluation. That evaluation was just two weeks ago. This employee was stellar and had no disciplinary history whatsoever. He declined, as advised by the Union, to resign and and was simply terminated for failure to complete the probationary period trial. I know his options are limited as far as the MSPB goes, but there has to be some mechanism in place, right? He is a 100% disabled veteran and had a history of using sick leave to deal with service-connected ailments, but all of that was approved through management officials.


Any help would appreciated. As an employee who is vested in the system, it kills me to see this happen to a colleague/disabled veteran.

The only real avenue they may have is via the EEO process.

That said...how much time was he away from the office? Disability not withstanding, large times away from the job are grounds for termination even after probation. If we are talking only a couple of weeks and that was cumulative for the whole probation period...may be difficult for the agency to overcome pretext. However, if we are talking 30-40% or more time away, then the agency's case is pretty solid even with good evaluation in place.

You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
thanks 1 user thanked frankgonzalez for this useful post.
thalweg on 5/2/2017(UTC)
Random Sentient Being  
#3 Posted : Tuesday, May 02, 2017 12:11:36 PM(UTC)
Random Sentient Being

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 4/29/2017(UTC)
Posts: 3
United States

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
To answer your question, this employee was probably, at a minimum, 40+ percent absent, but the Agency led him to believe he would be fine as long as he went through the appropriate channels when taking sick leave. I'm currently assisting him the matter as a Union rep. The agreement with management officials was that he would be counseled appropriately if he didn't follow protocol. This is exactly the situation we wanted to avoid nearly a year ago when he started. Supervisors never once counseled him on his sick leave/LWOP usage. I've reviewed his entire EOPF and everything exceeds the standard. Correspondence from his supervisor indicates everything was okay and he would be fine.
Go saints  
#4 Posted : Tuesday, May 02, 2017 2:56:28 PM(UTC)
Go saints

Rank: Groupie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/18/2013(UTC)
Posts: 121

Thanks: 4 times
Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 4 post(s)
An attorney specializing in federal employee labor law would probably take this on contingency basis. I would expect the employee to win big if management didn't have their paper trail properly documented from the outset.
SDAnalyst  
#5 Posted : Tuesday, May 02, 2017 3:46:17 PM(UTC)
SD Analyst

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2013(UTC)
Posts: 1,931

Thanks: 1684 times
Was thanked: 321 time(s) in 274 post(s)
Sorry to hear this. I would first make sure of when the Probationary Period ended. Sometimes Agencies mess up, which is to the employee's advantage. As a Preference-Eligible (Disabled Veteran), he has rights to file an appeal with MSPB. Unfortunately, they don't have a Quorum yet that I know of, and his case will sit. It seems hard to me to justify a Termination with glowing Performance Reviews. However, as a Probationary employee, there is little proof required. Still, in this case, I would appeal it. You may have better luck in the U.S. Court system.
frankgonzalez  
#6 Posted : Wednesday, May 03, 2017 4:16:50 AM(UTC)
frankgonzalez

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 4,226

Thanks: 40 times
Was thanked: 682 time(s) in 520 post(s)
Sorry to hear, but 40%+ absent? And on probation? Long uphill battle here. Record shows he is absent long periods, even if a good employee when there, the job was designed for a FTE not a part-time one. Which means a large chunk of his work is going to others to be accomplished. And, if he is new, he isn't earning leave at the rate to cover his time away...and so must be on LWOP for a good chunk of the time even if he was granted 8 hours of annual a PP for his military service, still missing 20 hours a PP of paid leave. So unless he was getting leave donated, would be in the hole (bad place to be as he not only has lost his job but would owe back the advance leave used).

Even via EEO, being out for that much of the time is a legitimate business reason to terminate someone's employment..even if they were past the probation period. It would just require a bit more paperwork.

I have some sympathy for him, but as a fellow disabled vet, wonder a little at the lack of planning. 40%+ means he is gone at least 2 days a week. Hard to hold down a full time job anywhere with that level of absenteeism regardless of the reason why. Did he need to be gone that long? Or could he have stacked appointments to one day a week mainly and so been in the office more frequently? Could he have teleworked as an accommodation so he could work right up to going to see the doctor and get back to work right afterwards? Did he request a flex schedule where he could make up the time absent later in the day or PP or even earn credit hours on the days he was in to use when he had to be away so he still worked 80 hours a PP? Was there an end to the medical treatment in the near future or was this open-ended? Six more weeks of treatment and then he wouldn't be missing any more work is different than this could be the expectation forever.

And the agency followed protocol. They approved leave as requested. However, you state he was out 40%+ of the time. Following protocol or not...that level being out leads to termination at a certain point. They did so during probation as it requires less paperwork, but the record is in their favor. If they waited a little longer until the probation had ended, it would have been a leave restriction letter followed by a termination for excess absenteeism. Being let go during probation is less harmful to finding another position than the same events after probation.

You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
thanks 1 user thanked frankgonzalez for this useful post.
thalweg on 5/3/2017(UTC)
SDAnalyst  
#7 Posted : Wednesday, May 03, 2017 12:23:23 PM(UTC)
SD Analyst

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2013(UTC)
Posts: 1,931

Thanks: 1684 times
Was thanked: 321 time(s) in 274 post(s)
I remembered about the new Disabled Veteran Leave Act. He should fall under that, employees hired after Nov. 2016. They receive an additional 104 hours of leave which has to be used within the first year of employment.So how they can terminate him for following the rules of the DV Leave Act makes me wonder if it will stand. I would tell him to get the local union (assuming he is a member) to file a Grievance based on that. Posting the first paragraph, but here is a link to the OPM page: https://www.opm.gov/poli.../disabled-veteran-leave/

Under the Wounded Warriors Federal Leave Act of 2015 (Public Law 114-75, November 5, 2015), an employee hired on or after November 5, 2016, who is a veteran with a service-connected disability rating of 30 percent or more from the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) of the Department of Veterans Affairs is entitled to up to 104 hours of disabled veteran leave for the purposes of undergoing medical treatment for such disability.
An eligible employee will receive the appropriate amount of disabled veteran leave as of the employee’s “first day of employment,” as defined below. Disabled veteran leave is a one-time benefit provided to an eligible employee. The employee will have a single, continuous 12-month eligibility period, beginning on the “first day of employment” in which to use the leave or it will be forfeited with no opportunity to carry over the leave into subsequent years. An employee may not receive a lump-sum payment for any unused or forfeited leave under any circumstance.

Edited by user Wednesday, May 03, 2017 12:27:08 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

FS0201  
#8 Posted : Wednesday, May 03, 2017 4:30:10 PM(UTC)
FS0201

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/22/2011(UTC)
Posts: 1,010

Thanks: 69 times
Was thanked: 249 time(s) in 215 post(s)
Originally Posted by: SDAnalyst Go to Quoted Post
I remembered about the new Disabled Veteran Leave Act. He should fall under that, employees hired after Nov. 2016. They receive an additional 104 hours of leave which has to be used within the first year of employment.So how they can terminate him for following the rules of the DV Leave Act makes me wonder if it will stand. I would tell him to get the local union (assuming he is a member) to file a Grievance based on that. Posting the first paragraph, but here is a link to the OPM page: https://www.opm.gov/poli.../disabled-veteran-leave/

Under the Wounded Warriors Federal Leave Act of 2015 (Public Law 114-75, November 5, 2015), an employee hired on or after November 5, 2016, who is a veteran with a service-connected disability rating of 30 percent or more from the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) of the Department of Veterans Affairs is entitled to up to 104 hours of disabled veteran leave for the purposes of undergoing medical treatment for such disability.
An eligible employee will receive the appropriate amount of disabled veteran leave as of the employee’s “first day of employment,” as defined below. Disabled veteran leave is a one-time benefit provided to an eligible employee. The employee will have a single, continuous 12-month eligibility period, beginning on the “first day of employment” in which to use the leave or it will be forfeited with no opportunity to carry over the leave into subsequent years. An employee may not receive a lump-sum payment for any unused or forfeited leave under any circumstance.


OPs friend was terminated the day before probation ended, so not likely to have been hired after 11/5/16. Even if he were, having been absent upward of 40% of the time, he would have long ago used up the 104 hours that are advanced.
The excuse of, "I read it on FederalSoup..." won't work. Please do your due diligence.
frankgonzalez  
#9 Posted : Thursday, May 04, 2017 3:03:13 AM(UTC)
frankgonzalez

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 4,226

Thanks: 40 times
Was thanked: 682 time(s) in 520 post(s)
Originally Posted by: FS0201 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: SDAnalyst Go to Quoted Post
I remembered about the new Disabled Veteran Leave Act. He should fall under that, employees hired after Nov. 2016. They receive an additional 104 hours of leave which has to be used within the first year of employment.So how they can terminate him for following the rules of the DV Leave Act makes me wonder if it will stand. I would tell him to get the local union (assuming he is a member) to file a Grievance based on that. Posting the first paragraph, but here is a link to the OPM page: https://www.opm.gov/poli.../disabled-veteran-leave/

Under the Wounded Warriors Federal Leave Act of 2015 (Public Law 114-75, November 5, 2015), an employee hired on or after November 5, 2016, who is a veteran with a service-connected disability rating of 30 percent or more from the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) of the Department of Veterans Affairs is entitled to up to 104 hours of disabled veteran leave for the purposes of undergoing medical treatment for such disability.
An eligible employee will receive the appropriate amount of disabled veteran leave as of the employee’s “first day of employment,” as defined below. Disabled veteran leave is a one-time benefit provided to an eligible employee. The employee will have a single, continuous 12-month eligibility period, beginning on the “first day of employment” in which to use the leave or it will be forfeited with no opportunity to carry over the leave into subsequent years. An employee may not receive a lump-sum payment for any unused or forfeited leave under any circumstance.


OPs friend was terminated the day before probation ended, so not likely to have been hired after 11/5/16. Even if he were, having been absent upward of 40% of the time, he would have long ago used up the 104 hours that are advanced.
2080 hours in the typical work year. 40% is 832 hours. Even allowing the 104 hours (which he probably wasn't entitled to due to being hired prior to the effective date), he was still gone 728+ hours from work. Allowing he had 15 years of military service (to be credited for 8 hours of AL per PP), between AL and SL, the most he could have earned in the year is 312 hours. Still leaves 416 hours to be accounted for in some fashion (and this number goes up if he was only earning 6 or 4 hours of AL).

I understand the need to work, but I would suggest he is not in a position to be able to commit to a full time position right now. He may want to figure out how he can minimize time away from work, and/or a suitable accommodation an employer can provide which will allow him to complete 80 hours a two-week pay period. Until he takes care of the issue(s) that brought him to this point, this will repeat again and again.

You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
thanks 1 user thanked frankgonzalez for this useful post.
thalweg on 5/4/2017(UTC)
DroneBee  
#10 Posted : Thursday, May 04, 2017 7:01:28 AM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/24/2014(UTC)
Posts: 269

Thanks: 74 times
Was thanked: 54 time(s) in 43 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Random Sentient Being Go to Quoted Post
[T]erminated a day prior to the completion of his probationary period... He is a 100% disabled veteran.


This may be a relevant EEOC response at https://www.eeoc.gov/eeo.../ada_reas_accomm_3.html. (https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/foia/letters/2002/ada_reas_accomm_3.html) I would also see https://www.mspb.org/Probationary-employees.html. (https://www.mspb.org/Probationary-employees.html)

Please have him contact his congressman/senator and ask for a congressional inquiry. Also, a friend, family, or he can contact https://www.veteranscrisisline.net/. This is a help organization that if someone calls, they should help.

This is SO SAD.

Good luck.







frankgonzalez  
#11 Posted : Thursday, May 04, 2017 7:12:10 AM(UTC)
frankgonzalez

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 4,226

Thanks: 40 times
Was thanked: 682 time(s) in 520 post(s)
Originally Posted by: DroneBee Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: Random Sentient Being Go to Quoted Post
[T]erminated a day prior to the completion of his probationary period... He is a 100% disabled veteran.


This may be a relevant EEOC response at https://www.eeoc.gov/eeo.../ada_reas_accomm_3.html. (https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/foia/letters/2002/ada_reas_accomm_3.html) I would also see https://www.mspb.org/Probationary-employees.html. (https://www.mspb.org/Probationary-employees.html)

Please have him contact his congressman/senator and ask for a congressional inquiry. Also, a friend, family, or he can contact https://www.veteranscrisisline.net/. This is a help organization that if someone calls, they should help.

This is SO SAD.

Good luck.

It is sad. However, the Rehab Act (which applies to federal employees vs the ADA) considers excessive time away from work to be an undue hardship for an agency. Of the 12 months at work...gone almost 5 months (possibly more), of the 52 weeks, about 21 weeks gone...and no end in sight. Therefore, it can be argued a couple of ways;
1. It is an undue hardship to accommodate someone being out that much time as the agency needs a FTE.
2. In the alternative, the employee is no qualified for the position as they are unable to meet the essential element of actually working the required hours, and so no accommodation needs to be provided.

I have not heard an accommodation was requested (which may or may not impact the potential outcome), but a lack of request hinders the employee's case.
You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
thanks 1 user thanked frankgonzalez for this useful post.
thalweg on 5/4/2017(UTC)
DroneBee  
#12 Posted : Thursday, May 04, 2017 7:46:18 AM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/24/2014(UTC)
Posts: 269

Thanks: 74 times
Was thanked: 54 time(s) in 43 post(s)
Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post

1. It is an undue hardship to accommodate someone being out that much time as the agency needs a FTE.


We don't know the amount of time out; in any case,
Originally Posted by: Random Sentient Being Go to Quoted Post
but all of that was approved through management officials.


Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post
2. In the alternative, the employee is no qualified for the position as they are unable to meet the essential element of actually working the required hours, and so no accommodation needs to be provided.



Originally Posted by: Random Sentient Being Go to Quoted Post
[T]he employee just received outstanding performance marks across the board on his evaluation. That evaluation was just two weeks ago. This employee was stellar.


Seems to me like the Agency is picking on a 100% disabled vet - time to contact congress and veteran's organizations.

Good luck.
frankgonzalez  
#13 Posted : Thursday, May 04, 2017 8:12:05 AM(UTC)
frankgonzalez

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 4,226

Thanks: 40 times
Was thanked: 682 time(s) in 520 post(s)
Originally Posted by: DroneBee Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post

1. It is an undue hardship to accommodate someone being out that much time as the agency needs a FTE.


We don't know the amount of time out; in any case,
Originally Posted by: Random Sentient Being Go to Quoted Post
but all of that was approved through management officials.


Actually, we have an idea, if you had read an earlier post:
Originally Posted by: Random Sentient Being Go to Quoted Post
To answer your question, this employee was probably, at a minimum, 40+ percent absent, .....

And just because a supervisor approves leave doesn't mean it won't impact you at a point in time where you are out a significant amount of time over the year. I want you to get medical help and not be AWOL, however, I need an employee who is actually working full-time.


Originally Posted by: DroneBee Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post
2. In the alternative, the employee is no qualified for the position as they are unable to meet the essential element of actually working the required hours, and so no accommodation needs to be provided.



Originally Posted by: Random Sentient Being Go to Quoted Post
[T]he employee just received outstanding performance marks across the board on his evaluation. That evaluation was just two weeks ago. This employee was stellar.


Seems to me like the Agency is picking on a 100% disabled vet - time to contact congress and veteran's organizations.

Good luck.
Note I didn't say they couldn't do aspects of the job...just that they fail to meet the essential element of actually coming to work. And, if they were out the 40+% the OP stated, then a large chunk of that employee's work is being done by other people.

And, while I recognize you are anti-management under all circumstances, some of us disabled vets can feel sympathy for this person but still understand that they are not able to do the job full time.

And while you may want to rile up veteran organizations, they tend to look at the whole picture as military folks tend to be mission focused. Plus this is the VA...and likely the source the employee was getting medical help...and if there was no end in close sight, and no accommodation requested (and I suggested a few options that would have decreased the time away from working), then better it be a probationary release than a termination for absenteeism...which could make it difficult later on to get future employment with Uncle Sam.

Edited by user Thursday, May 04, 2017 8:13:03 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
DroneBee  
#14 Posted : Thursday, May 04, 2017 8:21:45 AM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/24/2014(UTC)
Posts: 269

Thanks: 74 times
Was thanked: 54 time(s) in 43 post(s)
Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post
[Various attacks on DroneBee.]


Frank, this isn't a forum about you - a common criticism of you by others. I am trying to help by providing actual resources, links, and relevant cases. A 100% disabled vet was fired a day before the end of his probation even though he had a "stellar" appraisal two weeks before. Not only are the management officials weasels, they are not accountable. So let's work together to help these folks who have no support and not needlessly attack each other.

I'm sure that the Court of Public Opinion (via the 24-hour-a-day news) would like to weigh in. I would suggest that the vet contact one of these outlets as well (but only if he is ready to face the onslaught by the agency).

old fed  
#15 Posted : Thursday, May 04, 2017 8:27:50 AM(UTC)
old fed

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/10/2012(UTC)
Posts: 616

Thanks: 94 times
Was thanked: 50 time(s) in 45 post(s)
Originally Posted by: DroneBee Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post
[Various attacks on DroneBee.]


Frank, this isn't a forum about you - a common criticism of you by others. I am trying to help by providing actual resources, links, and relevant cases. A 100% disabled vet was fired a day before the end of his probation even though he had a "stellar" appraisal two weeks before. Not only are the management officials weasels, they are not accountable. So let's work together to help these folks who have no support and not needlessly attack each other.

I'm sure that the Court of Public Opinion (via the 24-hour-a-day news) would like to weigh in. I would suggest that the vet contact one of these outlets as well (but only if he is ready to face the onslaught by the agency).



quality of work and attendance are two different issues. and if i remember the contract correctly, attendance is forbidden to be included in performance reviews.
Metalhed  
#16 Posted : Thursday, May 04, 2017 9:20:10 AM(UTC)

Rank: Rookie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/11/2011(UTC)
Posts: 36

Thanks: 2 times
Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 3 post(s)
this is a huge red flag for any third party review.

If the person was so bad, they will argue, why did you not take care of this sooner.

The 11th hour terminations are fraught with problems
frankgonzalez  
#17 Posted : Thursday, May 04, 2017 9:42:48 AM(UTC)
frankgonzalez

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 4,226

Thanks: 40 times
Was thanked: 682 time(s) in 520 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Metalhed Go to Quoted Post
this is a huge red flag for any third party review.

If the person was so bad, they will argue, why did you not take care of this sooner.

The 11th hour terminations are fraught with problems
While they can be...the issue of attendance can be explained if they asked the employee how much longer is this likely to be going on. If there was not a short timeframe given, then they took the appropriate action. Now if the employee said "i have only three more weeks of appointments, and then I only need to see them once a quarter.", you have a whole different set of circumstances that would be difficult to explain.

You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
frankgonzalez  
#18 Posted : Thursday, May 04, 2017 9:55:14 AM(UTC)
frankgonzalez

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 4,226

Thanks: 40 times
Was thanked: 682 time(s) in 520 post(s)
Originally Posted by: DroneBee Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post
[Various attacks on DroneBee.]


Frank, this isn't a forum about you - a common criticism of you by others. I am trying to help by providing actual resources, links, and relevant cases. A 100% disabled vet was fired a day before the end of his probation even though he had a "stellar" appraisal two weeks before. Not only are the management officials weasels, they are not accountable. So let's work together to help these folks who have no support and not needlessly attack each other.

I'm sure that the Court of Public Opinion (via the 24-hour-a-day news) would like to weigh in. I would suggest that the vet contact one of these outlets as well (but only if he is ready to face the onslaught by the agency).

The only people I see who complain about my posts are those like you (less than 5 in total) who all seem to believe management can do no right and the employee is always the victim. I apologize for being pragmatic and a realist. Giving people false hope is worse than informing them of the cold hard truths of the situation. What relevant cases have you provided that show someone let go after frequent absenteeism and the agency found to be at fault? (come-on...I provided some for you earlier today, so your turn if you are being honest).

And, if the employee goes to the media, be prepared for ALL the facts to come out...like, the employee was out 40+% of the time and we tried working with him but in the end, he couldn't guarantee that he wouldn't decrease the amount of absenteeism....and THEN the other potential employers see this and avoid hiring a potential problem...and then life gets real miserable. Right now, the employee can say that due to circumstances he wasn't a good fit for the job as he was let go during probation. If they waited another week, he would be shown as being terminated for absenteeism. Which is easier to explain when looking for a job?

The employee needs to critically look at whether they can actually work full time or are their medical concerns preventing this from happening. if the latter, then they need to file a new claim with the VA regarding their disability (and a VSO can help with that). They may need to consider a different career track. A person may be a brilliant mechanic, but if they are unable to bend, lift heavy items, grip tools etc...well, maybe they should look for a new vocation. Voc Rehab at the VA may be able to assist with that. But being out 40+% of the time will impact their ability to maintain any full time position over the long term. That is a fact of life.

You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
thanks 3 users thanked frankgonzalez for this useful post.
old fed on 5/4/2017(UTC), Miamiandthecity on 6/22/2017(UTC), Navy Tron on 7/2/2017(UTC)
nightchop  
#19 Posted : Thursday, May 04, 2017 2:31:20 PM(UTC)

Rank: Advisor

Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/29/2012(UTC)
Posts: 142

Thanks: 11 times
Was thanked: 15 time(s) in 12 post(s)
"If they waited another week..." Huh? In what agency does a termination happen that quickly? If they waited another week, they'd likely face a legal hurdle trying to explain why they're terminating a disabled vet with a documented medical condition. You make this all sound so simple, Frank.
DroneBee  
#20 Posted : Thursday, May 04, 2017 5:12:26 PM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/24/2014(UTC)
Posts: 269

Thanks: 74 times
Was thanked: 54 time(s) in 43 post(s)
Originally Posted by: frankgonzalez Go to Quoted Post
The only people I see who complain about my posts are those like you (less than 5 in total).


Jeepers Frank, keeping track? That horrible, unfair EEOC process is making you a little touchy.

For the Vet: There may be appeal rights through the MSPB(https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/part-315/subpart-H). See 5 CFR 315.806(c), On improper procedure (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/315.806). You may have a case per 5 CFR 315.805, Termination of probationers for conditions arising before employment. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/5/315.805).

You can search for relative cases through https://www.mspb.gov/decisions/searchdec.htm. (https://www.mspb.gov/decisions/searchdec.htm) I put in the search term "315.806" and 138 decisions resulted, but I don't know how close they are to the situation. The first case that popped up was LeMaster v. VA, 2016 MSPB 25, wherein the order was: "For the reasons discussed above, we find that the appellant has established the Board’s jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 5 C.F.R. § 315.806(c), and we remand this case to the field office for further adjudication in accordance with this Opinion and Order." In any case, if you find a relevant case, you can see the attorney who represented that person and contact that attorney (if s/he's a winner!).

Note that you have to file an appeal in the MSPB quickly - "An appeal must be filed within 30 calendar days of the effective date of the action, if any, or within 30 calendar days after the date of receipt of the agency's decision, whichever is later. If the 30th day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the filing deadline is extended to the next working day." (https://www.mspb.gov/appeals/appellantqanda.htm).

Good luck!

Rss Feed  Atom Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.


This page was generated in 2.059 seconds.