Please note that effective December 1, 2011, the Firm amended its articles of organization to change the name of the Firm to the Jeffrey Law Group, PLLC. The Firm formerly was known as Mahoney & Jeffrey, PLLC.
Warning: Feds beware of political activity (Oct. 20, 2010)
By Brian Kalish, GovernmentExecutive.com (govexec.com) writer
“The normal penalty for a Hatch Act violation is removal and OSC will always ask for that, said Peter Jeffrey, an attorney and director of litigation at Mahoney and Jeffrey, a Washington law firm that specializes in federal employee issues.”
“Jeffrey said OSC and federal agencies should do more to educate the workforce about unacceptable political activities. “There’s very little training on the Hatch Act in most agencies,” he said.”
“He pointed to a somewhat gray area that has emerged with e-mail. As most agencies allow some personal use of e-mail while on government computers, federal employees could unknowingly violate the act just by opening an e-mail, Jeffrey said.”
***
High Court will consider privacy rights in fed background investigations (Mar. 25, 2010)
By Anjali Patel, Esq., cyber FEDS® Staff Writer
When an agency denies suitability for employment, (Attorney Peter Jeffrey) said, an appeals mechanism gives federal employees “the right to be given notice of a negative determination and the ability to reply in writing.” However, “even though appeals procedures should be available” to federal contractors, he said, “many of the agencies have yet to implement” them.
“If a contractor is denied this credential, where is the due process in terms of replying to any determination?” Jeffrey told cyber FEDS®. Accordingly, he predicts future cases “will point to appeals for government contractors” who are denied credentials.
***
EEO pilots will have to improve quality, reduce processing time (Jan. 22, 2010)
By Dave Kittross, cyber FEDS® Washington Bureau
Peter Jeffrey, the director of litigation for Mahoney and Jeffrey, which represents federal employees in EEO matters, told cyber FEDS® it is unrealistic to expect agencies that are currently unable to meet investigative timetables to be able to develop effective new programs. Overall, he said, the proposed regs reflect “form over substance.” Jeffrey is concerned that the pilots could frustrate investigations by establishing more “byzantine” procedures that would lead to increased legal costs for employees. In addition, the proposed rules do not provide additional resources, and Jeffrey wondered how agencies that are already understaffed will be able to implement new requirements and procedures.
He said a better approach would be for the EEOC to develop its own proposal to improve the EEO process, and then allow agencies to test the “model” program.
***
FLRA backs arbitration ruling upholding claim of unfair disparate discipline (Jun. 11, 2009)
By Dave Kittross, cyber FEDS® Washington Bureau
Peter Jeffrey, from the law firm Mahoney and Jeffrey, told cyber FEDS® that unions and agencies can work together to develop discipline policies that help avoid the need for third-party involvement. He said agencies should also follow a progressive discipline model that alerts employees to consequences of misconduct, rather than wait on a problem until it “blows up” and requires serious action.
***
High Court considers resolution to ADEA disparate impact claims (May 1, 2008)
By cyber FEDS®
“If the 2d Circuit decision is upheld, employee plaintiffs would have to piece together through expensive and time-consuming discovery the evidence necessary to demonstrate why the employer’s factor other than age was unreasonable,” said Peter Jeffrey . . .
***
Effective ADR may reduce number of formal EEO complaints (Mar. 25, 2008).
By Christine Cave cyber FEDS® Washington Bureau
Peter Jeffrey . . . said agencies must overcome some other stumbling blocks for ADR to be effective. One is failing to bring an appropriate settlement official to the table. Agency representatives must have the authority to discuss monetary claims for damages, Jeffrey said.
“This is especially a problem in more egregious cases when claims of compensatory damages are necessary, such as in harassment, disability, or discrimination claims, or when failure to accommodate has exacerbated an employee’s disability,” he said.
***