Call : 888-899-7284
Federal employees often carry a heavy load when workplace conflict turns into an EEO matter: stress about reputation, fear of being labeled “difficult,” and the real worry that speaking up will trigger retaliation. When your career path depends on visibility, acting...
When your health and your job collide, federal work becomes intensely stressful—especially if you feel isolated, watched, or worried about retaliation for speaking up. For many federal employees, the stakes go far beyond a difficult week at work. Your career,...
A published MSPB decision shows how a removal can be mitigated when some charges fall away—even while a serious falsification charge remains sustained. The case highlights how evidence, standards, and Douglas factors shape outcomes.
Federal employees are getting mixed messages about telework accommodations—especially when telework (including remote work) is requested as a disability‑related reasonable accommodation under the Rehabilitation Act (which generally applies ADA standards). In the last...
An EEOC Office of Federal Operations decision explains how retaliatory comments about EEO activity—and ongoing increased scrutiny—can be enough to violate federal EEO law, even when other claims are not proven.
In an EEOC decision involving a federal employee’s telework accommodation request, the Commission found a ten month delay was unreasonable and remanded for compensatory damages. The EEOC also ordered reimbursement for hearing transcript costs—an important reminder that process rights matter.
An MSPB decision involving a federal employee’s timekeeping discrepancies shows how Douglas factors, de minimis variances, and disparate penalties can drive significant penalty mitigation.
A USPS part-time clerk said her supervisor removed floor mats linked to foot pain—and that her removal followed quickly after she asked for more mats. The EEOC upheld some findings but reversed on reprisal, ordering corrective action and further proceedings on damages.
A federal officer was kept on light duty and later deemed not medically qualified after an allergic reaction. The EEOC reversed in part, emphasizing individualized “direct threat” analysis and ordering reinstatement-related remedies.
In this MSPB decision, the Board upheld a finding that a USPS supervisor intentionally falsified an employment application—but ruled that removal was too severe. The penalty was mitigated to a written reprimand, with back pay and benefits ordered.