|
||||
|
Login
Month Archive
Recent Visitors
cdavan - Wed 06 Jan 2010 12:09 PM EST
jjpershing - Thu 17 Dec 2009 09:16 AM EST
msalik - Thu 26 Feb 2009 12:16 PM EST
DON KAISER - Fri 14 Nov 2008 11:51 PM EST
ladybontsai - Tue 29 Jul 2008 08:45 AM EDT
|
Friday, October 8
by
mknjlaw
on Fri 08 Oct 2004 09:58 PM EDT
In the antediluvian epoch, before January 11, 1979, the effective date of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, federal agencies found it much harder to fire an employee whose performance was sub par. Whether they wanted to remove the employee for misconduct or poor performance, the agency had to prove its charges by a preponderance of the evidence, and had to establish that the removal was taken for such cause as would promote the efficiency of the service. Because of the incessant whining of federal managers who complained without good reason that it was impossible to remove poor-performing federal employees, Congress enacted 5 U.S.C.A. � 4303, which made it much easier to fire federal employees accused of unacceptable performance. Indeed, Peter Broida, Esq., the undisputed dean of federal employment law lawyers said, �A well-structured performance action is tough to beat.�
Why are Chapter 43 actions so difficult to beat or, more accurately, so easy for the agency to win? more »
|
|||