Intimidating and Controlling Behavior

This document is subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, and may require redaction before
disclosure to third parties. No redaction has been performed by the Office of Inspector General. Recipients
of this report should not disseminate or copy it without the Inspector General% spproval.
intimidating manner directly from several individuals, who are her former subordinates but with
whom she still works, during the workday and in the wo had her
attorney contact a couple of these same individuals after
Furthemore, the OIG investigation found that the fonn we interviewed
uests for affidavits to be inappropriate and intimidating. In
in seeking these affidavits were again disruptive to the
The evidence demonstrates that continued to engage in the same type of
intimidating behavior and dismptiw ac ed in our original report, even after she was
provided with our December 2007 Report of Investigation, and even after her superiors removed
her supervisory duties and she was gi proposal for a two-day suspension as a result
of the OIG's findings. We found sed her right to respond to the proposed
suspension as an opportunity to c dating behavior that led to the proposed
disciplinary action.
Moreover, we uncovered additional evidence that a history of intimidating
and controlling behavior, which has continued even &er
Counsel position. Therefore, we recommend that the Agency cons1
investigative findings in taking appropriate disciplinary action against
including dismissal.
Relevant Law
1. Employee Has No Right to Confront Accusers During Agency's Processing of
Disciplinary Action
The Merit Systems Protection Board ('MSPB" or Voard") has stated that although an
employee has the right to review the material supporting the charges against her and has a right to
a Board hearing which permits her to confront her accusers, an employee has no right to confront
her accusers during the Agency's processing of the disciplinary action, Graham v. USPS, 2
M.S.P.R. 213,216 (1980). Moreover, an Agency will not be faulted for advising its employees
that they are fi-ee to speak, or not to speak, to an appellant's representative in support of the
appellant's reply. Woodford v. Dept. of Amy, 75 M.S.P.R. 350,359 (1997). In Woodford, the
appellant unsuccessfully argued before the Board that the Agency's action of writing to each
witness listed by appellant's representative and stating that it was his or her decision whether or
not to speak to appellant's representative constituted witness intimidation. Id.
(b)(T)(C)