Hostile Work Environment in Federal Employment

Perhaps it is an inevitability.  When a Federal employee or a U.S. Postal worker suffers from a medical condition, such that the medical condition begins to impact one or more of the essential elements of one’s job, the reaction of the agency for whom he or she works (or the U.S. Postal Service), is often one of lack of supportive behaviors, to propose an understatement.  Reacting to a reactionary response, however, is not always the intelligent thing to do.

When the Federal employee or the U.S. Postal Service recognizes a need to file for Federal Disability Retirement benefits through the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether the Federal employee or the U.S. Postal worker is under FERS or CSRS, the natural and instinctive thing to do is to reference the hostile work environment in one’s Statement of Disability (SF 3112A), thinking that statements about, and references to, an agency which has further exacerbated the severity and extent of one’s medical condition, will help to further the cause of attaining an approval for a Federal Disability Retirement application from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Such a strategy, however, may well backfire, and one needs to be cautious in approaching the formulation of one’s Statement of Disability when consideration is given to including information concerning circumstances which may constitute a hostile work environment.

Relevant facts are always helpful; helpful facts are often necessary; and sufficiency of facts is always necessary.  However, in preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from OPM, discretion is the better part of valor, and that is especially true when submitting a Federal or Postal Medical Retirement application to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Employee Medical Retirement: The Emotional Quotient

To “walk in another person’s shoes” is a sentiment which attempts to foster empathy for the plight of another.  We tend to believe that if the “other person” had an understanding of the entirety of one’s circumstances, that there would awaken an altered perspective.

“Feeling”, of course, is quite different from “knowing”, and thus do we have, in this era of modernity, that which is identified as one’s “emotional quotient”, as distinct from the traditional “IQ” criteria.

For the Federal or Postal employee considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, whether under FERS or CSRS, the conceptual distinction between “feeling” and “knowing” is one which should be considered throughout the course of putting together one’s Federal Disability packet.  For, it is ultimately a third party — a stranger in a gargantuan bureaucracy, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management — who must be “touched” in order to approve one’s Federal Disability Retirement application.

What is said; how it is said; the compliance with the legal criteria applied; how persuasive; whether the emotive content follows and reinforces the factual delineations; and the extent of the logical nexus created between one’s Federal position and the medical condition suffered; all of these in their complex intersection and combination serve to create a picture of a person’s medical condition, and the impact of that condition upon one’s ability/inability to perform one or more of the essential elements of one’s job.

One can approach the entire endeavor and simply say, “The only thing that matters is whether you meet the legal criteria or not”.  On the other hand, you may consider that, as human beings are fallible creatures, and not mere automatons, there may well be an emotional quotient which must be factored in, and in order to tap into such a vast resource of non-objectivity, one must consider one’s words carefully; for, in the end, it is language which creates the picture, as in the very picture of “walking in another’s shoes”.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement Benefits for US Government Employees: The Narrative of Emotion

Often, when one has been embroiled in a prolonged battle with another person, an organization, agency, etc., the embattled state itself takes on a life of its own, and decisions which should be based upon a rational perspective, what is in one’s best interest, etc., are cast aside.  That is why divorce proceedings — ones which involve little children — are such traumatic events to witness.  But domestic relations litigation is not the only type of proceedings which tear at one’s soul.

Often, a Federal or Postal employee will be involved in countless years of procedural and administrative litigation — including EEO filings, formal grievances, lawsuits filed in Federal courts, etc. — which take their toll upon one’s family, one’s career, and one’s health.  Sometimes, the engagement of litigation becomes a way of life, and the daily turmoil constitutes the norm by which one lives.

When one’s health is impacted, however, the Federal or Postal Worker who considers filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, will sometimes allow for the years of battle to cloud one’s judgment.  While historical narratives concerning the background of one’s medical conditions may be somewhat appropriate in preparing and formulating one’s Federal Disability Retirement Applicant’s Statement of Disability, one should be cautious in filing a narrative of emotion — that exhaustive rant against a particular supervisor or coworker; against the agency; and against the world which has turned into an enemy of daily turmoil and emotional upheaval.

Focus upon the essence of a Federal Disability case.  It may be time to leave behind that prolonged state of embattlement, and find a quiet spot in the pasture of one’s future, and enjoy a day of peace by securing one’s future with a Federal Disability Retirement annuity.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal Worker Disability Retirement: Recognition of the Imperfect Self

At any extrapolated slice of a person’s life, the identity, character, narrative and personality of an individual is an incomplete description; but a description representing a particular period of a person’s life, together with the multiple preceding, intervening and subsequent sections, constitute the entirety of one’s “life story”.

In preparing, formulating and filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, it is often difficult for the Federal or Postal employee to find, choose, and apply the “right words” in describing the medical conditions and how they impact one’s positional duties; then to further delineate the impact upon one’s personal life.  For, everyone wants to tell “the whole story”, thinking that the narration of a fractured autobiography reflects an incomplete compendium of a greater complexity of truth.  But from the perspective of the “other” — i.e., in this case, the case worker at the Office of Personnel Management — it is necessary to tell the anomaly of the incomplete complete story:  a slice of life, incomplete in comparison to the totality of a person’s life, but complete in that it answers the questions posed on SF 3112A, and satisfies the legal criteria which forms the basis of an approval or disapproval.

A person’s life can never be captured by an incomplete narrative; and just as a semicolon is a grammatical indicator where the story is meant to continue, so the complexity of a person’s life story — encompassing value, truth and relevance in a world devoid of a teleological framework — can only be captured imperfectly in any Applicant’s Statement of Disability.  The key, therefore, is to recognize the inability to tell a complete story; and, often, it is best if someone else tells the story for you.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal and Postal Disability Retirement: The Effective Narration

In preparing, formulating and filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS, it is often difficult to maintain an objective perspective on one’s own case, precisely because of the intimate knowledge, relationship, and involvement one has with the particular medical conditions one suffers from.  

Sometimes, of course, “maintaining an objective perspective” can backfire — where the argument made or the formulation of the applicant’s statement of disability, conveys little or no emotional undertone.  But the opposite of that particular perspective is normally the case — where one’s own personal involvement and relationship to a case fails to state the facts, circumstances, medical elements and their relationship to one’s inability to perform one’s job, in a manner which is neither coherent nor relevant.  

In preparing and formulating a Federal Disability Retirement application, the problem with a narrative involving one’s own medical condition is not because of its emotive content, for such emotional substance can often be effective in persuasive discourse; rather, the problem with it normally has to do with the coherence of the narrative itself.  

Emotion is necessary for the conveyance of genuineness; only, don’t let the emotion get in the way of telling one’s story.  For the true narrator tells the tale such that the audience feels the heart of the story, without ever knowing that the narration itself is the cause of the emotional upheaval.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Medical Retirement Benefits for Federal & Postal Employees: Objectivity & Credibility

Whether justified or not, the conceptual interconnection between objectivity and credibility is inseparable.  This general rule is no different in filing a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS.  The appearance of objectivity naturally lends itself to credibility of an application.  If too much emotional fervor is infused into an application, the credibility of the application is immediately undermined.  Now, because any discussion concerning a medical condition, the impact of a particular medical condition upon one’s ability or inability to perform one or more of the essential elements of a job; impact upon one’s personal life, etc., inherently and necessarily encapsulates an emotional perspective, does this mean that most — if not all — disability retirement applications are somewhat undermined at the outset?  No, of course not.  The characterization of the application; the tone, tenor and approach, are all conveyed in the narrative of the application.  This is precisely why it is often dangerous for applicant to be one and the same as the person who prepares the Federal Disability Retirement application.  The subjective cannot become the objective without great effort; and few are able to expend the proper effort to effectuate the balanced tone of objectivity.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal & Postal Service Disability Retirement: The Workplace

When a Federal or Postal employee is considering filing for Federal Disability retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS, there are many and varying conflicting responses, wrapped and bundled in emotional turmoil, reactionary and concerned viewpoints, etc.  Stories of a “hostile work environment”, of discriminatory actions, harassing supervisors, etc., are often part of the “narrative” of a person considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement. 

One must be careful, however, that when the affirmative decision to file for disability retirement is made, that only those relevant aspects of the narrative be included in the final disability retirement packet.  Things which do not provide a compelling basis for proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, the necessary criteria for meeting the legal standard to be approved for Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS or CSRS or, just as importantly, things which will harm a disability retirement application– they should be left out of the final narrative. 

Such issues surrounding a “hostile work environment” or a harassing supervisor — such perspectives or narrative formulations which come close to the dangerous precipice of showing that one’s medical disability is merely a “situational” disability (those medical conditions which are specifically confined to a specific situation in a specific agency’s office environment) — should certainly be left out of the final narrative.  This brings up a further point, which I have touched upon many times in the past:  a person without an attorney to formulate the narrative in filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits is often too close to his or her own case, and cannot objectively present the proper narrative to the Office of Personnel Management.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal & Postal Service Disability Retirement: Personal v. Objective

Filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits is a personal matter.  It is personal precisely because it is considered as an admission of a disability; it goes to the heart of what a person does in life — one’s livelihood, one’s means of support; and it goes to the perception in our society of the “worth” of an individual — financial worth, productive worth, worth in terms of the ability to support a family, and worth in terms of one’s contribution to society.  Because it is so personal, it is difficult to “objectively” assess and evaluate a disability retirement claim, by the individual who is thinking about filing for such a benefit. 

That is often why it is important to have an attorney represent an individual who is considering filing for Federal Disability Retirement benefits.  Often, when I am hired at the second or third Stage of the process, I read the initial submissions of the client, and find that the “personal” has indeed overtaken the “objective”, precisely because the very subject of the disability retirement process — the applicant — had to undertake the very personal process himself/herself.  Such personal subjectivity cannot see beyond the very personal nature of the medical condition, and when that happens, it is almost too personal for the OPM representative to make an objective assessment of the case.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Disability Retirement: The Attorney’s Role

It may sound harsh; it may even sound “mean”; but I often tell my potential clients that I am not their therapist, doctor, or empathy-advisor.  I am their attorney.  When advising people to respond to an Office of Personnel Management denial with some “discretion”, it is often difficult for an individual who is so closely tied with his or her own case, to remain objective and detached.  Yet, detachment is the mark of professionalism, and that is why the old adage is true — that an individual who represents himself in court has a fool for a client. 

My job as an attorney who represents Federal and Postal employees to obtain Federal Disability Retirement benefits under FERS & CSRS must be guided with a focus of understanding the factual context, the medical conditions, the type of job, the symptomatologies manifested by the medical conditions, and apply the law governing disability retirement issues.  If I become a therapist, it detracts from my focus; if I become an empathy-advisor, I become “attached”, as opposed to de-tached.  That is not to say that I will not listen to the relevant medical background (note the confusing double-negative, which merely means that yes, I will listen, to some extent) — I certainly will.  But only to the extent that will allow me to win the case for my client.  For, that is my job:  to get an approval from the Office of Personnel Management.  If I am successful at that, then my client will have gained all the needed empathy of the world:  a semblence of financial security.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

CSRS & FERS Disability Retirement: The Proper Focus of the Attorney

Have you heard of the fable about the general who led a vast and unstoppable army, with multitudes of foot soldiers, artillery, supply lines, a vast ocean of destructive power — who stopped to console a woman who had lost her son to an illness?  He failed to lead his army, and as a consequence, his vast and seemingly indestructible army was devastated in a battle which should have been a lopsided victory for the general of whom we speak.  What is the point of that fable?  It is that we all have our duties and responsibilities, and while the moral compass of the general was certainly “not inappropriate” (note the double negative) — but the timing was inappropriate.  Why was the timing inappropriate?  Because the general had other more pressing duties and responsibilities to attend to. Thus, it is important in speaking about the proper role of individuals, to always point to both content, as well as context.  The general’s job was to lead his army; the fact that he had empathy for a woman who had lost her son, is commendable — but not in the context of needing to lead his men into battle. 

This is important to understand in the context of a client and his or her attorney; remember that the attorney’s role is to win the case; and while empathy for the client’s personal situation and, in the case of Federal Disability Retirements under FERS & CSRS, it is important for the attorney to understand the “human story” of the medical condition, the impact of such medical conditions, and how they prevent one from performing the essential elements of one’s job, remember that the primary focus of the Federal Disability Retirement attorney is, and always should be, upon applying the applicable law, and to win the case.  It is the Attorney’s job to keep the client’s focus upon those issues which will help him win the case.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire