McFall v. Scalia

Background

Kathleen McFall worked as a Wage and Hour Investigator for the Department of Labor until her termination on March 11, 2019. Her work included interviewing employees, reviewing records, and recommending enforcement actions. The dispute arose from interviews she conducted with an employee of a landscaping company. McFall’s interview statements indicated that the employee spoke English and made certain statements in English. In later interviews with supervisors who spoke Spanish, the employee said that he did not speak or understand English and did not understand the statements attributed to him.

The Department investigated McFall and charged her with providing inaccurate information, lacking candor during an investigatory meeting, failing to follow instructions to turn over case files and work limited hours, and violating procedures for time reports, travel vouchers, and interview documentation. The Department terminated her employment. An administrative judge for the Merit Systems Protection Board found that the Department proved the charges, established a connection between McFall’s conduct and the efficiency of the service, and imposed a reasonable penalty. The administrative judge also rejected McFall’s defenses that the removal was based on race, sex, or age discrimination and retaliation for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or union activity.

McFall brought this federal action under the civil-service review statute and Title VII. Her complaint asserted five claims: a challenge to the Merit Systems Protection Board decision and four independent claims for race discrimination, sex discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII. The Department moved for partial summary judgment under Rule 56 on the civil-service claim only.

The court’s review of the civil-service claim

Because this was a challenge to an administrative decision, the court reviewed the administrative record. It could disturb the Merit Systems Protection Board’s decision only if it was arbitrary or capricious, an abuse of discretion, contrary to law, obtained through legally improper procedures, or unsupported by substantial evidence. The court explained that substantial evidence means relevant evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequate to support a conclusion, and that the court could not replace the administrative judge’s credibility determinations with its own.

The court upheld all four charges. For the first charge, it found substantial evidence supporting the administrative judge’s conclusion that McFall’s interview statements inaccurately described the employee’s English ability and statements. The court rejected McFall’s arguments based on evidence outside the administrative record, evidence she had not sought through a motion to compel, and her disagreement with the administrative judge’s credibility determinations.

For the second charge, the court upheld the finding that McFall lacked candor when she insisted during the investigatory meeting that the employee spoke “perfect English.” The court concluded that the administrative record supported the finding that McFall knowingly misrepresented or omitted information and that deception was involved.

For the third charge, the court upheld the finding that McFall failed to follow instructions to submit her case files and work only eight-hour days. The court rejected her arguments that the instructions were unfair, unclear, affected by her leave, or inconsistent with other work requirements.

For the fourth charge, the court upheld findings that McFall violated known procedures governing time reports, travel vouchers, and documentation of interviews. The court noted evidence that she submitted inaccurate time reports, late travel vouchers, and inadequate interview documentation, including failing to identify certain interviews or properly record use of a translation service.

Connection to the agency’s work and penalty

The court also upheld the administrative judge’s finding that McFall’s conduct had a sufficient connection to the Department’s mission. The court explained that accurate investigative records and truthful reporting were directly related to the Department’s enforcement of federal labor laws and that inaccurate records could harm the agency’s work and reputation.

The court further upheld the termination as a reasonable penalty. It applied a highly deferential standard and concluded that the penalty was not totally unwarranted or grossly disproportionate to the misconduct. The administrative judge had considered the relevant penalty factors, including the seriousness and repeated nature of the misconduct, McFall’s experience, the loss of trust, and her investigative responsibilities.

Discrimination and retaliation claims

The Department’s motion did not seek summary judgment on McFall’s independent Title VII claims. The court reviewed the administrative judge’s rejection of discrimination and retaliation as defenses to the civil-service removal challenge, but it did not decide the independent Title VII claims in this order. The court stated that those claims would proceed to trial and would not be limited to the evidence and arguments presented in the administrative proceedings.

Disposition

Judge McCarthy granted the Department’s motion for partial summary judgment on McFall’s non-discrimination civil-service claim and dismissed Count One. Counts Two through Five—McFall’s independent claims for race discrimination, sex discrimination, a hostile work environment, and Title VII retaliation—remain pending.