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 and Postal Disability Retirement: SF 3112B

It is amazing how a Supervisor’s Statement is completed.  Normally, it is completed without much thought; sometimes, it is completed with too much thought (and self-protective, CYA language concerning how much effort the agency attempted in “accommodating” the employee, when in fact little or no effort was made); more often than not, there is a last, parting shot at the employee — some unnecessary “dig” which often contradicts other portions of the statement; and, finally, every now and then, the Supervisor’s Statement is completed in the proper manner, with forethought and truthfulness. 

Fortunately, the Office of Personnel Management rarely puts much weight on a Supervisor’s Statement in making a determination on a Federal Disability Retirement application under FERS or CSRS — unless there is some glaring statement of a deliberate attempt to undermine the Application.  This is rare, because it is a medical disability retirement, not a Supervisor’s disability retirement — meaning, that it is the medical opinion, not the opinion of a Supervisor, which is (and should be) most important.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire

Federal & Postal Service Disability Retirement: Hindrances

One would think that the Human Resources Department of the Agency from which a Federal or Postal employee is attempting to file a Federal Disability Retirement application, would be a “helpful” entity.  It is indeed a baffling phenomena when one pauses and reflects upon it:  What is the purpose of the Human Resources Department?  Specifically, what existential purpose does a person serve, who has a positional designation of “Disability Retirement Specialist”?  Let me attempt to answer the question in the way it is supposed to be answer:  1.  The purpose of the Human Resources Department is to help the Federal and Postal employees of the Agency or Department of which they have been established.  2.  The person who holds the designated job entitled, “Disability Retirement Specialist” is one who, theoretically, is there to assist in any way, within the legal confines established by the Agency, in as much as possible, to help the Federal or Postal employee to finalized and complete the disability retirement packet for submission to the Office of Personnel Management.  Now, let me pose the following hypothetical:  an H.R. person calls up and says, “I cannot forward the disability retirement packet because Box Number ___ on Standard Form _____ has not been checked.”  Does this sound like the Human Resources Department is fulfilling the existential purpose for which it was established?  On the other hand, rhetorical questions are fun to ask, precisely because they are rhetorical, and allow one to expiate some build-up of frustrations on a Friday night, after a long week dealing with multiple agencies.  Have a good weekend.

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 Disability Retirement: Actions from the Federal Government or the Postal Service

I often receive telephone calls from Federal and Postal employees worried about what their Supervisor will write in the SF 3112B (Supervisor’s Statement) — the lies, half-truths, and vindictive statements that some Supervisors will, for whatever reason, attempt to have that “last parting shot”. Such acts by supervisors are, for the most part, and fortunately, the exception, and not the rule; but each time it happens, it is despicable to the exponential degree — especially in light of the context of attempting to harm a Federal or Postal employee who has a serious medical disability, and needs the financial security offered by disability retirement.

As a general rule, the best approach to take is to follow the rule of thumb of the wise man: Do not worry about those things over which you have no control; focus upon those things over which you do have control. Remember that this is a medical disability retirment — with the emphasis upon the term “medical”. Having said that, a disability retirement application must first and foremost focus upon obtaining the most excellent medical report. If this is accomplished, then in 99% of the cases, it will nullify and make irrelevant anything which the Supervisor puts down on the Supervisor’s Statement. This is the best and wisest approach to take; do not waste your time, emotional energy, or any further part of your life worrying about a Supervisor who lacks the fundamental compassion to be honest and truthful about an individual who has shown years of loyalty to the Federal Service. He/she is not worth it.

Sincerely,

Robert R. McGill, Esquire