Recently in Employment Law Category

Robert MacLean became a Federal Air Marshal in 2001. In 2003, the Marshals received word of a potential hijacking plot. Unsurprisingly enough, because the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) fails at everything, they botched the response. Because of a budget shortfall, they cancelled all missions on certain flights.

Terror/hijacking alert? Meh.

MacLean discussed his concerns through the proper channels, but nothing was done. So he did what he thought was best: leak the story to the press.

Workers aren't allowed to double-dip between Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) disability retirement annuities and Social Security Administration (SSA) disability benefits. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) must reduce a FERS disability annuity for any month in which the recipient is also "entitled" to SSA disability benefits.

Until this week, however, there was a grey area of statutory interpretation: What happens when an employee is eligible for Social Security benefits, but doesn't receive those benefits? Will he receive his full FERS annuity?

Stealing gift cards from undeliverable mail seems like something that Newman would have done on "Seinfeld." Except Newman never stooped so low. Instead, Warren Schiff -- Richard Dreyfuss' character on "Weeds" -- will be remembered as the TV mail carrier who pilfered gifts from undelivered mail.

So what would happen if a postal employee pulled a similar stunt in real life?

He would lose his job. And the federal employment review process would offer no relief.

One of the key roles of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals is to hear reviews from the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB). This year, the court has issued a number of decisions affecting the rights of federal employees post-termination.

Below, we've included a run-down of three of the more interesting employment law decisions handed down this year.

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals generally hears reviews from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). The Supreme Court clarified an exception to that rule this week.

Monday, the Court ruled that a federal employee who claims that an agency action appealable to the MSPB violates an anti-discrimination statute should seek judicial review in district court — not the Federal Circuit — regardless whether the MSPB decided her case on procedural grounds or on the merits.

Two months before his death in 2005, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs awarded 100 percent disability benefits to Lee Richardson, a veteran. The benefits award was retroactive to March 10, 1986, and included approximately $350,000 in accrued benefits.

Richardson never received payment from the VA. Sharon Youngman, Richardson's fiduciary and curator, attempted to collect his benefits for distribution to his cousins, his only survivors.

Last week, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals denied Youngman's request, concluding that Richardson's claim to the benefits was extinguished upon his death.

Dismissing a federal employee is no simple task.

This week, an unpublished Federal Circuit Court of Appeals opinion demonstrates how one federal agency took the necessary steps for its termination decision to withstand judicial review.

Federal judges often make less money in their life-tenured appointments than they would in the private sector. While they receive relatively comfortable salaries — the current salary is $174,000 for district court judges and $194,000 for circuit court judges — they have been fighting for years for annual cost of living adjustments (COLAs) that other federal employees receive.

(If those COLAs had not been withheld, the current salary for district judges would be $247,086 and $261,968 for circuit judges, according to the D.C. bar association.)

Friday, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a 10-2 opinion that federal judges are entitled to COLAs because withholding the pay increases effectively diminishes their compensation in violation of the Article III of the Constitution.

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week in Berry v. Conyers that federal employees in "noncritical sensitive" positions are out of luck if their agencies decide that they are ineligible to hold their jobs.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Department of the Navy v. Egan, the appellate court concluded that the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) cannot review an agency's determination concerning eligibility of an employee to occupy a "sensitive" position, regardless of whether the position requires access to classified information.

The Department of Labor is supposed to be the watchdog for labor related legal issues in the U.S. but in this case, one of their former employees is accusing the Department of not practicing what they preach.

The case involves classic retaliation claims in connection with an employee's whistleblowing. Whistleblowers are protected under federal law but here, a whistleblower within the Department of Labor was let go, reports Reuters.