Moutinho, . ,

'From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Deborah (EOIR)

Keller, Mary Beth (EOIR)

Wednesday, June 06, 2012 4:08 PM

Moutinho, Deborah (EOIR)

Fw: Decision Letter re: IJ

Attachments: D00O29. pdf

Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Device

From: McGoings, Michael (EOIR) Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 03:42 PM To: Nugent, James A. (EOIR) Cc: Klein, Eliza (EOIR); Nadkarni, Deepali (EOIR); Dean, Larry R. (EOIR) Subject: Decision Letter re: IJ

Judge

I have reached a decision concerning ACIJ Dean's proposed suspension of you. My decision letter is attached.

Michael C. McGoings Deputy Chief Immigration Judge

6/7/2012

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

0000794002378002378

0000794002375002375

Detail

Complaint Number: 619 Immigration Judge: (b)(6)

Current ACIJ Dean, Larry R. PastACIJS:

A-Numbers(s) b)(6)

Base City

tlidl

Complain t Nature(s)

Out-of-court conduct

Complaint Narrative: lJ became irate and was screaming at the CA.

Status CLOSED

EOIR

Complaint History

ACIJ spoke with the lJ

ACIJ coordinating with ELR

ACIJ interviewed court staff

Proposed suspension I days

U response extended until 5/9/12

Database entry created

Ij requesting an extens ion to respond

Extension granted until 5/11/12

lJ submits response

Decision - suspens ion - DCIJ upholds I day suspension

NAU files a grievance

NAU oral presentation given to the CIJ; decis ion pending.

Complaint Received Date: 03/28/12

Final Action Decis ion - suspension

Complaint Source(s)

Final Action Date 06/06/12

03/29/12

04/05/ 12

04/07/12

04/11/ 12

04/16/12

04/17/ 12

05/01/12

05/02/ 12

05/08/12

06/06/ 12

07/ 18/ 12

07/3 1/12

08/23/12 Decision subsequently upheld I Day Suspension 1 days From: 20 I 2-10-29 To: 20 I 2-10-29

Sep 11, 2013 1 of 1

619

EOIR Index to Randomly Assigned IJ Codes for Database Prepared for Liti

complaint complaint complaint IJ Code Number Open Date Closed Date

ANY ~1 ~ 03/28/12 08/23/12

OPU 620 04/19/12 05/08/12 ....... -- . - .... - ... - - - . .. . . .. -

Moutinho, Deborah (EOIR)

'From: Keller, Mary Beth (EOIR)

Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 9:04 AM

To: Moutinho, Deborah (EOIR)

Subject: FW: Incident Report

mtk

From: Dean, Larry R. (EOIR) Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 8:58 AM To: Keller, Mary Beth (EOIR); Rosenblum, Jeff (EOIR) Subject: RE: Incident Report

I served IJ a one day suspension letter last week. I also FAXed an intake sheet showing that the letter was issued.

LRD

From: Keller, Mary Beth (EOIR) Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 7:36 AM To: Rosenblum, Jeff (EOIR); Dean, Larry R. (EOIR) Subject: RE: Incident Report

Good morning Larry and Jeff, Was there anything drafted on this? I don't seem to recall and can't find a copy, but saw some email traffic to Judge McGoings this morning. Tx. mtk

From: Dean, Larry R. (EOIR) Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 9:05 AM To: Keller, Mary Beth (EOIR) Cc: Rosenblum, Jeff (EOIR) Subject: FW: Incident Report

Mary Beth, Jeff,

This is the matter we spoke about last Thursday. I hope to start working today on some type of personnel action related to this.

MaryBeth,

Should I do an intake sheet on this?

LRD

4/16/2012

(b) (6)

(b) (5)

0000794002376002376

From: (EOIR) Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 1:52 PM To: Dean, Larry R. (EOIR) Subject: FW: Incident Report

We need to talk about this email at your convenience.

From: (EOIR) Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 6:25 PM To: (EOIR) Subject: Incident Report

On 03/28/12 about 3:55 pm. I was at my work area, when I heard the door to your office, close with a loud slam. This called my attention being this it's not usual at all. My work area is immediately next to your door. I can not always see who walks in or out. Nonetheless shortly after, I heard Immigration Judge yelling, shouting and totally out of control. I did not hear you respond

to or hear your voice, to the point I feared for your well being and safety. As this continued I called Interpreter she deemed necessary to alert Supervisor Legal Assistant and I believe one of them informed IJ and

then came near your door where I was now standing. nd could clearly see that I was upset, worried and alarmed because of the erratic and frightening behavior of Immigration Judge as continued to yell uncontrollably. IJ

abnormal and imprudent behavior continued for approximately 15 minutes. It was not until IJ knocked and walked into your office that the shouting subsided some. I am certain that many other members of the staff heard and were concerned.

After a few minutes, both IJ and IJ left your office. and I entered your office to see you. We were in fear by IJ irrational behavior and concerned that might have caused you physical harm. I do not know if IJ asked you if you two could talk with the door closed. From our prospective, I felt you were trapped with no way out and perhaps held against your will, all caused by agitated and frightening actions. We found you sitting at your desk shaking, crying and what appeared to be in a state of shock. A couple of minutes before leaving for the day I went back to your office, closed the door, and just made sure you were ok. When I left IJ was talking to you and you still seemed in distress.

, this intimidating, insulting and abuse of power it is not only extremely unprofessional as well as a personal attack, but it is also damaging to the moral of this office that you have worked so hard to build. IJ iolent behavior must, should and has to stop. It can not be justified nor tolerated. It does not go away with just a simple apology.

I write this incident with the purpose of concern and as a suggestion that this type of belligerent situations and acts by IJ should be taken to the highest level, to the proper authority within in chain of command. I believe IJ N conduct, behavior and comportment need to be reviewed and addressed as soon as possible to prevent what seems to have become a pattern of disrespect, unprofessionalism and aggression. I see abusive actions directed toward the in this office. As we know this has been a manner in which IJ thinks can address in this office often, which creates a hostile work environment. The recent workplace violence that occurred within DHS organization, (ICE incident might be a bit extreme, but EOIR needs to be made aware of this pattern of aggression and these early warning signs and take some type of corrective actions before it goes beyond the aggressive screaming confrontations exhibited by IJ

attached is the e-mail dated July, 29, 2010 addressed to you, which documents IJ pattern of disruptive rage issues towards This latest erratic and appalling episode by IJ rought back the sentiments of fear and intimidation that I experienced from IJ abuse of authority and lack of civility, to the point that last night I was flooded with troubled moments, for I still felt shaken by it all.

Respectfully,

4/16/2012

(b) (6)(b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)(b) (6)

(b) (6)(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

0000794002377002377

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Office of the Chief Immigration Judge

5107 Leaking Pike, Suite -2500 Falls Church, Virginia 22041

June 6, 2012

Immigration Judge

Re: Suspension Decision

Dear Judge

By letter dated April 11, 2012, Assistant Chief Immigration judge (ACIJ) Larry R. Dean proposed that you be suspended for one calendar day without pay for inappropriate conduct in the workplace (hereinafter "Proposal"). After requesting and receiving an extension of time to respond to the Proposal, you submitted a written response dated May 8, 2012 (hereinafter "Initial Response"). In the Initial Response, you asked if there were any attachments to ACIJ Dean's proposal and if so, that you be given an opportunity to review them and respond before I issued a decision. Thereafter, I inquired if there was additional information and was given a memo to the file written by ACIJ Dean. I forwarded ACIJ Dean's memo to you and invited you to provide a supplemental response, which you did on May 24, 2012 (hereinafter "Supplemental Response").

In making my decision, I considered the Proposal, the memo to the file, and your Initial and Supplemental Responses. Based upon my careful review of this information, I find that preponderant evidence supports the charges against you and that a one-day suspension is reasonable under the circumstances.

I. CHARGE -- Inappropriate Conduct

A. Proposal and Initial Response

The Proposal charged you with engaging in inappropriate conduct in the workplace. Proposal at 1. The inappropriate conduct occurred on March 28, 2012, when you received an email from ACIJ Dean about possible changes in the agendas of the Court. In response, you began to complain and loudly stated, "They haven't talked to me. They can't do this to me." Id. Thereafter, you went into Court Administrator office, slammed the door, and for approximately fifteen minutes, yelled at our behavior disturbed the court staff to

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)(b) (6)

0000794002379002379

the point they considered calling the Federal Protective Service (FPS). Eventually, they asked your colleague IJ to intervene. The charge of inappropriate conduct also included a statement you later made to in which you said she should admonish the staff for reporting your conduct and for considering calling the FPS.

In your Initial Response, you stated that you "accept[ed] responsibility for any behavior that inadvertently caused offense" t or the court staff. Initial Response at 1. You denied that the incident reflected a pattern of intemperance and asserted that it "[did] not amount to inappropriate or intemperate conduct." Id. You also attributed the incident to a miscommunication caused by OCIJ to the court. Regarding ACIJ Dean's conclusions, you characterized them as "just plain wrong" and claimed, "I did not yell at [ all." Id. at 2. You admitted that you raised your voice with ut did not slam the door.

You stated that when IJ came into office, he said that the staff had "asked him to intervene in the discussion between and myself." Id. When IJsaid that some staff members threatened to call the FPS, you said you were "flabbergasted." Id. You said that you asked if elt threatened and aid no.

In your Initial Response, you also addressed the charge that you wanted the staff to be admonished for having reported your conduct. You said you spoke with and "expressed my chagrin that certain members of the staff had made what I considered a threat to me, told I believed it was in fact retaliation for prior issues I had brought to h ttention, and asked to consider admonishing those members of the staff." Id. at 3. In declining to admonish the staff, you said " did not indicate in any way that was upset or offended by our previous discussions." Id.

B. ACIJ Dean's Memo to the File and the Supplemental Response

As noted earlier, following the submission of your Initial Response, I was given and thereafter provided you with a copy of ACID Dean's April 10, 2012 memo to the file in which he summarized his interviews of the Court staff following the incident. I became aware of the memo after you requested any additional documentation. The memo reflects in particular

recounting of what occurred when you entered office. According to he incident lasted between 15-20 minutes. She said you ranted at times and when you did, you were screaming. Although denied being intimidated by you, nevertheless was offended.

The Supervisory Legal Assistant (SLA) also described the two court interpreters as being upset by your behavior. The SLA told IJ hat if the incident involving you did not stop, the staff would call the FPS. One of the court interpreters told ACIJ Dean that heard you yelling and that was upset.

In your Supplemental Response, you conceded "there was a difference between what I said to r and how it was perceived." Supplemental Response at 1. You attributed your conduct to the proposed policy change by ACID Dean, which you perceived as unfair. You also said that you "deeply regret" that your conduct caused "upset or hard feelings[.]" Id. In addition, you said that you have "spent a considerable amount of time since [the incident]

2

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)(b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

0000794002380002380

examining my actions and how they were perceived by the staff." Id You said that you had taken steps to "soften" your approach to issues that arise in the Court and that the incident would not be repeated. You added that you meant for your apology to the staff to be sincere and that you were restoring your relationships with the staff. You also welcomed "further guidance on these issues, if deemed necessary." Id.

I find that certain statements you made in your two responses lacked consistency and thus, were not credible. In particular, I note that the tone of your Initial Response was combative. I also note that you labeled ACIJ Dean's findings as "just plain wrong." You admitted raising your voice but were adamant that you did not yell. You next said "that

gave no indication that was upset [and] later in the day and I shared a laugh about it all." Id. at 2. Yet later, in the same response, you said that your raised voice "did not cause

particular alarm, although it might have upset Id. at 4. Thereafter, your Supplemental Response, which you submitted after having read ACID Dean's memo documenting his interviews of eye witnesses to the incident, was much more conciliatory. Indeed, having learned that your colleagues described with specificity both your tempestuous behavior as well as emotional state, you conceded the need to "soften" your response to issues which may arise in the workplace. Supplemental Response at 2. The inconsistencies in your statements, coupled with the consistent, contradictory statements of your colleagues, have led me to doubt the credibility of your version of events.

Thus, after fully considering the Proposal and your responses, I find that preponderant evidence supports that you acted inappropriately during the incident in question. I therefore uphold the charge of inappropriate conduct.

II. PENALTY

In determining the appropriate penalty for your misconduct, I considered the relevant factors set forth in Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. 280 (1981). I considered your years of service as a Federal employee to be a mitigating factor. I also considered the contrition you expressed in your Supplemental Response.

However, these factors are outweighed by the seriousness of your offense. I find both your denial that you yelled at and your related claim that was not upset to be belied by the facts. None of your colleagues corroborated your version of events. First, your colleagues reported to be upset by your behavior. Second, your colleagues contradicted your contention that the incident with did not evidence intemperate or inappropriate conduct on your part. Instead, your colleagues described a level of workplace anger - by you - that caused one of them to intervene and, more disturbingly, led others to consider calling the FPS. I am disturbed by your exhibition of intemperate behavior that led your colleagues to consider law enforcement intervention. Indeed, given the consistent evidence presented by your colleagues concerning your behavior, 1 find your characterization of the consideration of contacting the FPS as a "threat" to be wholly without merit. Initial Response at 2.

I also find the fact that you asked to admonish the staff for reporting your misconduct to be equally disturbing. You do not have a supervisory role over the Court

3

(b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)(b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)(b) (6)

(b) (6)

0000794002381002381

(b) (6)

0000794002382002382

Administrator or the staff. As such, you are not in the position to instruct the Court Administrator to discipline them. Moreover, all staff members have the right to feel secure in their workplace. In addition, they have an obligation to report workplace misconduct without the fear of retaliation. Your view that they should be admonished for reporting your misconduct is inappropriate.

I also note that this incident was precipitated by your disapproval of management's supposed failure to consult with you before proposing changes to the-Court's agendas, including yours. Despite any objections you might have to the contrary, management has a right, and an obligation, to assign work to the Immigration Judges, and it is not always practical or feasible to consult with them beforehand. The ultimate responsibility for ensuring the efficient case management of the court rests with the Assistant Chief Immigration Judge and the Court Administrator.

Your actions have caused me to lose confidence in your ability to carry out your responsibilities. Your temperament is crucial to your position as an Immigration Judge - both within and outside of the courtroom. Your failure to act appropriately - in response to an agenda change - concerns me greatly.

As an Immigration Judge who stands in the shoes of the Attorney General every day, the Chief Immigration Judge has made it clear that he expects the highest level of professionalism. Your actions as described above do not comport with that expectation.

Based upon the foregoing reasons, I find that a one-day suspension is reasonable and promotes the efficiency of the service. While this disciplinary action is meant to correct your misconduct, you should be cautioned that further instances of such behavior could result in more severe discipline or adverse action, up to and including removal from the Federal service.

III. Grieyance Rights

You may file a grievance of this discipline. As a member of the bargaining unit represented by the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), you are subject to the grievance procedures set forth in Article 8 of the collective bargaining agreement between the NAIJ and the Office of the Chieflmmigration Judge, Executive Office for Immigration Review.

Sincerely,

Michael C. McOoings Deputy Chief Immigration Judge

cc: Larry R. Dean Assistant Chief Immigration Judge

Deepali Nadkarni Assistant Chief Immigration Judge

4

Moutinho, Deborah (EOIR)

From: Keller, Mary Beth (EOIR) Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:29 PM To: Moutinho, Deborah (EOIR) Subject: FW: Grievance Decision Attachments: Signed Grievance Decision (IJ .pdf

- Grievance official upheld 1 day suspension.

From: Rosenblum, Jeff (EOIR) Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 11:51 AM To: Keller, Mary Beth (EOIR) Subject: Fw: Grievance Decision

Fyi

From: Wahowiak, Marlene (EOIR) Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 11:01 AM To: Klein, Eliza (EOIR); Slavin, Denise (EOIR) Cc: (EOIR); Dean, Larry R. (EOIR); Nadkarni, Deepali (EOIR) Subject: Grievance Decision

All:

Please see attached.

Thank you, Marlene Wahowiak Associate General Counsel EOIR/OGC-ELR 703-605

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

0000794002383002383

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Office of the Chief Immigration Judge

5107 Leesburg Pike. Suite 2500 Falls Church, Virginia 22041

August 22, 2012

Denise Slavin Vice President, NAU Krome Processing Center 18201 SW 12 th Street Miami, Florida 33194

Eliza Klein Grievance Chair, NAU Immigration Court 536 Clark Street, Room B1330/1320 Chicago, Illinois 60605

Re: Grievance Decision (U

Dear Ms. Slavin and Ms. Klein:

This letter constitutes my decision on the July 18, 2012 grievance that you filed on behalf of Immigration Judge (IJ) . Pursuant to Article 8.7(e) of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), I held a grievance meeting on July 31, 2012. Ms. Slavin appeared by video-teleconference and Ms. Klein attended telephonically. IJ

declined the opportunity to appear. In your grievance, you challenge the June 6, 2012 decision issued by Deputy Chief Immigration Judge (DCIJ) Michael C. McGoings, which upheld Assistant Chief Immigration Judge (ACIJ) Larry R. Dean's proposed one-day suspension of IJ

for inappropriate conduct.

In reaching my decision, I reviewed the April 11, 2012 proposed suspension issued by ACIJ Dean (Proposal) (Tab A); IJ May 8, 2012 response (Response) (Tab B); an April 10, 2012 "Note to File" created by ACIJ Dean (Note to File) (Tab C); U May 24, 2012 supplemental response (Supplemental Response) (Tab D); DCIJ McGoings' June 6, 2012 decision letter (Decision) (Tab E); and NAIr s July 18, 2012 grievance letter (Grievance) (Tab F). In addition, I carefully considered the presentations you each made during the July 31, 2012 grievance meeting.

For the reasons set forth below, I find that the deciding official properly considered the relevant Douglas factors and that the one-day suspension was within the bounds of

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

0000794002384002384

reasonableness. To the extent your grievance also seeks counseling on stress management and "potentially including additional training" for IJ , your request is granted. Grievance at 2. Your grievance also sought the implementation of "better methods of communicating docket reassignments at the ourt." Id This particular request is beyond the scope of this disciplinary matter and thus, is taken under advisement.

Charge of Inappropriate Conduct

Preponderant evidence supports the charge of inappropriate conduct. Neither IJ nor you as union representatives dispute that on March 28, 2012, was upset about an email from ACIJ Dean concerning docket assignments in the Court. In addition, neither U

nor you dispute that in reacting to the email, U pproached Court Administrator (CA) to voice frustration. Rather, the factual basis for the grievance centers on the nature of U behavior while in ffice; the reasonableness of the court staff's response to behavior; and the genuineness of IJ emorse thereafter.

NAIJ also objected to DCIJ McGoings' findings concerning discrepancies between U two responses. Specifically, during the grievance meeting you contended that those

findings essentially labeled IJ a "liar." You also argued that IJ productivity, particularly following the March 28, 2012 incident, directly contradicts DCIJ McGoings' findings that the incident caused him to lose confidence in IJ ability to carry out responsibilities and further, that a suspension would promote the efficiency of the service.

Regarding the events of March 28, 2012, I find that preponderant evidence shows that U engaged in inappropriate conduct when approached CA in office. The

immediate reaction of the staff and their contemporaneous reporting of the incident to another IJ in the office and to ACIJ Dean corroborate DCIJ McGoings' findings concerning U conduct while in office. Specifically, I find that U N ntered office, slammed the door, and proceeded to raise voice at for a measurable period of time.' I find that the staff's response to overhearing this gave rise to a legitimate concern about CA well-being, and that their contemplating contacting the Federal Protective Service (FPS) was not an overreaction. 2

I also find it relevant that U has been counseled in the past about temperament. Although IJ has not been formally disciplined for past behavior, I note that was counseled in 2008 about emperament prior to receiving ermanent position.

I take note of NAIJ's argument that 1. t is a person. IJ should be mindful of this in interactions with others at work. In addition, I also note that NAIJ indicated that LI has a hearing

deficiency which causes to speak loudly. II N ever made such a claim and no evidence was submitted on that subject. Moreover, even if accepted as true, such a deficiency does not excuse the conduct in which engaged.

2 NAIJ argues that the fact that FPS was not actually called is significant. I disagree. That court staff even contemplated making such a call, and spoke to another IJ about it, is an indication of the level of disruption that occurred in the workplace.

2

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)(b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

0000794002385002385

See Proposal Letter at 2. Moreover, as recently as October 2011, ACIJ Dean counseled h or having referred to a respondent as an "ass." Id.

This prior history leads me to disagree with yours and IJ assessment of the incident in office as simply one in which the perceptions those involved differed from and further, that the staff overreacted. IJ view of prior history suggests that is unaware of the affect behavior has on those around nitial response to DCIJ McGoings, for example, reflects this attitude, particularly concerning the prior counseling

received. In nitial response, IJ tated, "To the extent that the proposed suspension reflects a perception of a pattern of intemperance on my part, I deny that any such pattern exists or that intemperance is part of my character." Response at 1 (emphasis added). IJ proceeded to minimize the earlier events referenced in ACIJ Dean's proposal. See Proposal at 1. Among other things, IJ excused a door-slamming incident in by blaming it on an issue with homeowner's insurance and IJ also labeled temperament issues raised during a meeting with Associate Deputy Attorney General David Margolis about his becoming a permanent IJ as "other minor instances." Id. at 4. Regarding the October 2011 incident, IJ haracterized it as an isolated event that was "truly regrettable and has never been repeated . . . nor had I engaged in such conduct before[.]" Id.

In consideration of IJ subsequent response, I find that any substantive difference between his two responses is not due to a lack of candor. I also do not interpret DCIJ McGoings' letter as suggesting that IJ s a "liar." Rather, I credit IJ ubsequent explanation that upon reading ACIJ Dean's memo, eflected on the incident and accepted the perception held by others that had caused great offense in the office.

The issue of remorse dominated a considerable portion of the grievance hearing. I fmd that IJ first response is telling about level of remorse at the time of the incident. In that first response, IJ said approached the following day after being told had upset . also said addressed the staff, at ACIJ Dean's suggestion. Even so, hadmitted expressing to "chagrin that certain members of the staff' considered calling the FPS. Response at 3. lso strangely viewed the idea of calling the FPS as "a threat" against for having raised issues to ttention. Id Although I credit U

for having apologized to the following day, I concur with DCIJ McGoings' finding that U portrayal of the staffs consideration of calling the FPS as a "threat" to be wholly without merit. Decision at 3. Indeed, that particular finding, as well as U asking Ms. to admonish the staff for their conduct, leads me to conclude that while may have been remorseful in nitial apology to J id not understand the gravity of actions.

I do note that IJ supplemental response reflects a more conciliatory tone and a greater appreciation of the effect of behavior on others. I agree with NAU that this introspection, albeit delayed in this case, is desirable. I am hopeful that IJ ill use this incident to make permanent and lasting changes in this behavior towards other in the workplace.

3

(b) (6)

(b) (6)(b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)(b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)(b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

0000794002386002386

In considering IJ level of remorse, I also listened to the specific arguments you made on behalf at the grievance meeting. Specifically, I considered the anecdotal information you introduced during the grievance meeting concerning two particular actions took following the incident, i.e., calling both U shortly afterwards. However, in light of IJ voluntary absence from the grievance meeting, as well as the lack of statements or other evidence in the record concerning these actions, I did not afford those instances a substantial amount of weight. 3

Penalty

In your grievance, you argue that a suspension is unwarranted for the following reasons: (1) it does not promote the efficiency of the service; (2) it controverts the goal of progressive discipline; (3) it does not "accurately or meaningfully weigh" the Douglas factors; (4) the suspension is based upon an "inaccurate statement of both the Agency's actions and case management decisions," i.e., ACIJ Dean's email to the Court; (5) the decision erroneously finds a loss of confidence in U bility to carry out responsibilities; and (6) the decision unfairly characterizes IJ remorse as lacking credibility. Grievance at 1. I will address each of these items in turn.

I disagree with your argument that a suspension in this instance would not promote the efficiency of the service and that DCIJ McGoings erred in finding a loss of confidence in U

ability to perform responsibilities. The evidence shows a nexus between IJ inappropriate conduct and its adverse affect on colleagues, the workplace, and

management's confidence in It is without question that on March 28, 2012, U disrupted the workplace. conduct upset the Agency's onsite manager, as well as the support staff The affect of ehavior on those court employees led to management's loss of confidence in This formal discipline hopefully will act as a deterrent. By deterring future outbursts by IJ I am confident that it will promote the efficiency of the federal service.

I also disagree with your contention that the one-day suspension is not progressive discipline. A one-day suspension for disrupting the workplace is well within the bounds of reasonableness. See, e.g., Hunter v. Department of Justice, 110 M.S.P.R. 219, 224 (2008) ("Board will review the agency-imposed penalty only to determine if the agency considered all the relevant factors and exercised management discretion within tolerable limits of reasonableness."). I also reject the suggestion that the suspension comes as a result of a miscommunication by the Agency. As DCIJ McGoings stated in his decision letter, work assignments are solely within the purview of management. If an employee disagrees with an assignment, the proper response should be to contact management and discuss the matter in a professional manner, not through a temper tantrum in the workplace. Regarding U

While I did not hold IJ absence from the grievance meeting against I note that it prevented me from following up with directly with questions about the incidents referenced above and remorse generally.

4

(b) (6)(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)(b) (6)

(b) (6)(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)(b) (6)

(b) (6)

0000794002387002387

credibility, as I discussed earlier, I do not find a lack of candor on art nor do I agree that DCIJ McGoings suggested as much.

For the foregoing reasons, I find that the deciding official properly considered the relevant Douglas factors and that the one-day suspension was within the bounds of reasonableness. I considered IJ productivity, the contributions has made while serving on details to other courts, and the absence of formal discipline for the earlier temperament issues discussed herein. Notwithstanding these positive factors, I remind IJ Nthat the Agency expects the highest standard of professionalism from I caution hat future displays of intemperance will not be tolerated and could result in further discipline.

Sincerely,

o Brian M. O'Leary Chief Immigration Judge

Attachments

cc: IJ ACID Larry R. Dean ACID Deepali Nadkarni

5

(b) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)(b) (6) (b) (6)

(b) (6)

0000794002388002388