Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)
We have extensive experience litigating before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and focus on bringing stability to our clients’ professional lives by employing our in-depth understanding of the processes and attention to detail. We explore all options, using a professional approach to facilitate resolutions with agency officials while zealously litigating before the MSPB on behalf of our clients. We use this same zeal and professionalism when submitting petitions for review of initial Board decisions to the full Board. In addition to numerous resolutions that have protected our clients’ interests, examples of results of our litigation before the MSPB include:
Reversal of a suspension of a Assistant United States Attorney charged with committing professional misconduct during a high-profile prosecution of a United States Senator. Goeke v. Department of Justice, 122 M.S.P.R. 69 (2015);
Reversal of an employee’s removal when the deciding official considered ex parte communication in violation of the employee’s due process rights;
Reversal of the removal of an employee with prior discipline when the Agency did not prove its charges of being absent without leave, failure to follow leave procedures, and failure to follow instructions;
Reversal of an employee’s removal when the Agency did not prove the misconduct alleged and violated the employee’s due process rights by appointing a deciding official that made the risk of unfairness to the employee intolerably high;
Mitigation of an employee’s demotion when the Agency failed to establish that the penalty of expulsion from a training class and the resulting demotion was reasonable;
Award of back pay through enforcement of a contested interpretation of a settlement agreement; and
Enforcement of a contested oral settlement agreement with the Office of Special Counsel.
A precedential decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the MSPB erred in sustaining an employee’s removal based on a charge of Unauthorized Disclosure of a record protected by the Privacy Act when the agency did not prove “actual viewing or imminent viewing [of the record] by another” and a charge of “Lack of Candor” was not supported by substantial evidence. Wrocklage v. Department of Homeland Sec., 769 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
A decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversing a district court’s denial of a motion for summary judgment for a law enforcement officer entitled to qualified immunity. Rosebrock v. Perez, No. 2:17-cv-04354-DSF-AS (9th Cir. Oct. 7, 2020);
A remand to the MSPB to further consider a removal action of a supervisor in light of the an intervening decision of the Federal Circuit. Cenko v. DVA, No. 20-1418 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 6, 2020).