Ij Nugent Verified

Moutinho,
. ,
'From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Deborah (EOIR)
Keller, Mary Beth (EOIR)
Wednesday, June 06, 2012 4:08 PM
Moutinho, Deborah (EOIR)
Fw: Decision Letter re: IJ
Attachments: D00O29. pdf
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Device
From: McGoings, Michael (EOIR)
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 03:42 PM
To: Nugent, James A. (EOIR)
Cc: Klein, Eliza (EOIR); Nadkarni, Deepali (EOIR); Dean, Larry R. (EOIR)
Subject: Decision Letter re: IJ
Judge
I have reached a decision concerning ACIJ Dean's proposed suspension of you. My decision
letter is attached.
Michael C. McGoings
Deputy Chief Immigration Judge
6/7/2012
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
0000794002378002378

0000794002375002375
Detail
Complaint Number: 619 Immigration Judge: (b)(6)
Current ACIJ
Dean,LarryR.
PastACIJS:
A-Numbers(s)
b)(6)
Base City
tlidl
Complaint Nature(s)
Out-of-court conduct
Complaint Narrative: lJ became irate and was screaming at the CA.
Status
CLOSED
EOIR
Complaint History
ACIJ spoke with the lJ
ACIJ coordinating with ELR
ACIJ interviewed court staff
Proposed suspension I days
U response extended until 5/9/12
Database entry created
Ij requesting an extension to respond
Extension granted until 5/11/12
lJ submits response
Decision - suspension - DCIJ upholds I day suspension
NAU files a grievance
NAU oral presentation given to the CIJ; decision pending.
Complaint Received Date: 03/28/12
Final Action
Decision - suspension
Complaint Source(s)
Final Action Date
06/06/12
03/29/12
04/05/ 12
04/07/12
04/11/ 12
04/16/12
04/17/12
05/01/12
05/02/ 12
05/08/12
06/06/12
07/ 18/ 12
07/31/12
08/23/12 Decision subsequently upheld I Day Suspension 1days From: 20 I2-10-29 To: 20 I2-10-29
Sep 11, 2013 1 of 1

619
EOIRIndex to Randomly Assigned IJCodes for Database Prepared for Liti
complaint complaint complaint
IJ Code Number Open Date Closed Date
ANY ~1 ~ 03/28/12 08/23/12
OPU 620 04/19/12 05/08/12
....... -- . - .... - ... - - - . .. . . ..-

'From: Keller, Mary Beth (EOIR)
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 9:04 AM
To: Moutinho, Deborah (EOIR)
Subject: FW: Incident Report
mtk
From: Dean, Larry R. (EOIR)
To: Keller, Mary Beth (EOIR); Rosenblum, Jeff (EOIR)
Subject: RE: Incident Report
I served IJ a one day suspension letter last week. I also FAXed an intake sheet showing that the
letter was issued.
LRD
From: Keller, Mary Beth (EOIR)
To: Rosenblum, Jeff (EOIR); Dean, Larry R. (EOIR)
Subject: RE: Incident Report
Good morning Larry and Jeff,
Was there anything drafted on this? I don't seem to recall and can't find a copy, but saw some email
traffic to Judge McGoings this morning.
Tx.
mtk
From: Dean, Larry R. (EOIR)
To: Keller, Mary Beth (EOIR)
Cc: Rosenblum, Jeff (EOIR)
Mary Beth, Jeff,
This is the matter we spoke about last Thursday. I hope to start working today on some type of personnel
action related to this.
MaryBeth,
Should I do an intake sheet on this?
LRD
4/16/2012
(b) (6)
(b) (5)
0000794002376002376

From: (EOIR)
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 1:52 PM
To: Dean, Larry R. (EOIR)
We need to talk about this email at your convenience.
From: (EOIR)
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 6:25 PM
To: (EOIR)
Subject: Incident Report
On 03/28/12 about 3:55 pm. I was at my work area, when I heard the door to your office, close with a loud slam. This called my
attention being this it's not usual at all. My work area is immediately next to your door. I can not always see who walks in or out.
Nonetheless shortly after, I heard Immigration Judge yelling, shouting and totally out of control. I did not hear you respond
to or hear your voice, to the point I feared for your well being and safety. As this continued I called Interpreter
she deemed necessary to alert Supervisor Legal Assistant and I believe one of them informed IJ and
then came near your door where I was now standing. nd could clearly see that I was upset, worried and
alarmed because of the erratic and frightening behavior of Immigration Judge as continued to yell uncontrollably. IJ
abnormal and imprudent behavior continued for approximately 15 minutes. It was not until IJ knocked and walked
into your office that the shouting subsided some. I am certain that many other members of the staff heard and were concerned.
After a few minutes, both IJ and IJ left your office. and I entered your office to see you. We were in
fear by IJ irrational behavior and concerned that might have caused you physical harm. I do not know if IJ asked
you if you two could talk with the door closed. From our prospective, I felt you were trapped with no way out and perhaps held
against your will, all caused by agitated and frightening actions. We found you sitting at your desk shaking, crying and what
appeared to be in a state of shock. A couple of minutes before leaving for the day I went back to your office, closed the door, and
just made sure you were ok. When I left IJ was talking to you and you still seemed in distress.
, this intimidating, insulting and abuse of power it is not only extremely unprofessional as well as a personal attack, but it is
also damaging to the moral of this office that you have worked so hard to build. IJ iolent behavior must, should and has
to stop. It can not be justified nor tolerated.
It does not go away with just a simple apology.
I write this incident with the purpose of concern and as a suggestion that this type of belligerent situations and acts by IJ
should be taken to the highest level, to the proper authority within in chain of command. I believe IJ N conduct,
behavior and comportment need to be reviewed and addressed as soon as possible to prevent what seems to have become a
pattern of disrespect, unprofessionalism and aggression. I see abusive actions directed toward the in this office. As
we know this has been a manner in which IJ thinks can address in this office often, which creates a hostile
work environment. The recent workplace violence that occurred within DHS organization, (ICE incident might be a
bit extreme, but EOIR needs to be made aware of this pattern of aggression and these early warning signs and take some type of
corrective actions before it goes beyond the aggressive screaming confrontations exhibited by IJ
attached is the e-mail dated July, 29, 2010 addressed to you, which documents IJ pattern of disruptive rage
issues towards This latest erratic and appalling episode by IJ rought back the sentiments of fear and
intimidation that I experienced from IJ abuse of authority and lack of civility, to the point that last night I was flooded with
troubled moments, for I still felt shaken by it all.
Respectfully,
4/16/2012
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
0000794002377002377

U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Office of the Chief Immigration Judge
5107 Leaking Pike, Suite -2500
Falls Church, Virginia 22041
June 6, 2012
Immigration Judge
Re: Suspension Decision
Dear Judge
By letter dated April 11, 2012, Assistant Chief Immigration judge (ACIJ) Larry R. Dean
proposed that you be suspended for one calendar day without pay for inappropriate conduct in
the workplace (hereinafter "Proposal"). After requesting and receiving an extension of time to
respond to the Proposal, you submitted a written response dated May 8, 2012 (hereinafter "Initial
Response"). In the Initial Response, you asked if there were any attachments to ACIJ Dean's
proposal and if so, that you be given an opportunity to review them and respond before I issued a
decision. Thereafter, I inquired if there was additional information and was given a memo to the
file written by ACIJ Dean. I forwarded ACIJ Dean's memo to you and invited you to provide a
supplemental response, which you did on May 24, 2012 (hereinafter "Supplemental Response").
In making my decision, I considered the Proposal, the memo to the file, and your Initial
and Supplemental Responses. Based upon my careful review of this information, I find that
preponderant evidence supports the charges against you and that a one-day suspension is
reasonable under the circumstances.
I. CHARGE -- Inappropriate Conduct
A. Proposal and Initial Response
The Proposal charged you with engaging in inappropriate conduct in the workplace.
Proposal at 1. The inappropriate conduct occurred on March 28, 2012, when you received an
email from ACIJ Dean about possible changes in the agendas of the Court. In response,
you began to complain and loudly stated, "They haven't talked to me. They can't do this to me."
Id. Thereafter, you went into Court Administrator office, slammed the door,
and for approximately fifteen minutes, yelled at our behavior disturbed the court staff to
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
0000794002379002379

the point they considered calling the Federal Protective Service (FPS). Eventually, they asked
your colleague IJ to intervene. The charge of inappropriate conduct also included
a statement you later made to in which you said she should admonish the staff for
reporting your conduct and for considering calling the FPS.
In your Initial Response, you stated that you "accept[ed] responsibility for any behavior
that inadvertently caused offense" t or the court staff. Initial Response at 1. You
denied that the incident reflected a pattern of intemperance and asserted that it "[did] not amount
to inappropriate or intemperate conduct." Id. You also attributed the incident to a
miscommunication caused by OCIJ to the court. Regarding ACIJ Dean's conclusions, you
characterized them as "just plain wrong" and claimed, "I did not yell at [ all." Id.
at 2. You admitted that you raised your voice with ut did not slam the door.
You stated that when IJ came into office, he said that the staff had
"asked him to intervene in the discussion between and myself." Id. When IJ
said that some staff members threatened to call the FPS, you said you were "flabbergasted." Id.
You said that you asked if elt threatened and aid no.
In your Initial Response, you also addressed the charge that you wanted the staff to be
admonished for having reported your conduct. You said you spoke with and
"expressed my chagrin that certain members of the staff had made what I considered a threat to
me, told I believed it was in fact retaliation for prior issues I had brought to h ttention, and
asked to consider admonishing those members of the staff." Id. at 3. In declining to
admonish the staff, you said " did not indicate in any way that was upset or
offended by our previous discussions." Id.
B. ACIJ Dean's Memo to the File and the Supplemental Response
As noted earlier, following the submission of your Initial Response, I was given and
thereafter provided you with a copy of ACID Dean's April 10, 2012 memo to the file in which he
summarized his interviews of the Court staff following the incident. I became aware of the
memo after you requested any additional documentation. The memo reflects in particular
recounting of what occurred when you entered office. According to he
incident lasted between 15-20 minutes. She said you ranted at times and when you did, you were
screaming. Although denied being intimidated by you, nevertheless was
offended.
The Supervisory Legal Assistant (SLA) also described the two court interpreters as being
upset by your behavior. The SLA told IJ hat if the incident involving you did not stop, the
staff would call the FPS. One of the court interpreters told ACIJ Dean that heard you yelling
and that was upset.
In your Supplemental Response, you conceded "there was a difference between what I
said to r and how it was perceived." Supplemental Response at 1. You attributed your
conduct to the proposed policy change by ACID Dean, which you perceived as unfair. You also
said that you "deeply regret" that your conduct caused "upset or hard feelings[.]" Id. In
addition, you said that you have "spent a considerable amount of time since [the incident]
2
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
0000794002380002380

examining my actions and how they were perceived by the staff." Id You said that you had
taken steps to "soften" your approach to issues that arise in the Court and that the incident would
not be repeated. You added that you meant for your apology to the staff to be sincere and that
you were restoring your relationships with the staff. You also welcomed "further guidance on
these issues, if deemed necessary." Id.
I find that certain statements you made in your two responses lacked consistency and
thus, were not credible. In particular, I note that the tone of your Initial Response was
combative. I also note that you labeled ACIJ Dean's findings as "just plain wrong." You
admitted raising your voice but were adamant that you did not yell. You next said "that
gave no indication that was upset [and] later in the day and I shared a laugh about
it all." Id. at 2. Yet later, in the same response, you said that your raised voice "did not cause
particular alarm, although it might have upset Id. at 4. Thereafter, your
Supplemental Response, which you submitted after having read ACID Dean's memo
documenting his interviews of eye witnesses to the incident, was much more conciliatory.
Indeed, having learned that your colleagues described with specificity both your tempestuous
behavior as well as emotional state, you conceded the need to "soften" your
response to issues which may arise in the workplace. Supplemental Response at 2. The
inconsistencies in your statements, coupled with the consistent, contradictory statements of your
colleagues, have led me to doubt the credibility of your version of events.
Thus, after fully considering the Proposal and your responses, I find that preponderant
evidence supports that you acted inappropriately during the incident in question. I therefore
uphold the charge of inappropriate conduct.
II. PENALTY
In determining the appropriate penalty for your misconduct, I considered the relevant
factors set forth in Douglas v. Veterans Administration, 5 M.S.P.R. 280 (1981). I considered
your years of service as a Federal employee to be a mitigating factor. I also considered the
contrition you expressed in your Supplemental Response.
However, these factors are outweighed by the seriousness of your offense. I find both
your denial that you yelled at and your related claim that was not upset to be
belied by the facts. None of your colleagues corroborated your version of events. First, your
colleagues reported to be upset by your behavior. Second, your colleagues
contradicted your contention that the incident with did not evidence intemperate or
inappropriate conduct on your part. Instead, your colleagues described a level of workplace
anger - by you - that caused one of them to intervene and, more disturbingly, led others to
consider calling the FPS. I am disturbed by your exhibition of intemperate behavior that led
your colleagues to consider law enforcement intervention. Indeed, given the consistent evidence
presented by your colleagues concerning your behavior, 1 find your characterization of the
consideration of contacting the FPS as a "threat" to be wholly without merit. Initial Response at
2.
I also find the fact that you asked to admonish the staff for reporting your
misconduct to be equally disturbing. You do not have a supervisory role over the Court
3
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
0000794002381002381

(b) (6)
0000794002382002382
Administratororthe staff. Assuch,youare notinthepositionto instructtheCourt
Administratorto disciplinethem. Moreover,allstaffmembershavethe rightto feelsecurein
theirworkplace.Inaddition,theyhaveanobligationto reportworkplacemisconductwithoutthe
fearof retaliation.Yourviewthattheyshouldbeadmonishedforreportingyour misconductis
inappropriate.
I alsonotethatthisincidentwasprecipitatedby yourdisapprovalof management's
supposedfailureto consultwithyoubeforeproposingchangesto the-Court's agendas,
includingyours. Despiteanyobjectionsyoumighthaveto thecontrary,managementhasa right,
andanobligation,to assignworkto theImmigrationJudges,andit is notalwayspracticalor
feasibleto consultwiththembeforehand.Theultimateresponsibilityforensuringtheefficient
casemanagementof the courtrestswiththeAssistantChiefImmigrationJudgeandtheCourt
Administrator.
Youractionshavecausedmeto loseconfidencein yourabilityto carryout your
responsibilities.Yourtemperamentis crucialto yourpositionas an ImmigrationJudge- both
withinandoutsideof thecourtroom.Yourfailureto actappropriately- in responseto anagenda
change- concernsmegreatly.
Asan ImmigrationJudgewhostandsintheshoesof theAttorneyGeneraleveryday,the
ChiefImmigrationJudgehasmadeit clearthatheexpectsthehighestlevelof professionalism.
Youractionsasdescribedabovedonotcomportwiththatexpectation.
Basedupontheforegoingreasons,I findthata one-daysuspensionis reasonableand
promotestheefficiencyof theservice. Whilethisdisciplinaryactionis meantto correctyour
misconduct,youshouldbecautionedthatfurtherinstancesof suchbehaviorcouldresultin more
severedisciplineor adverseaction,upto andincludingremovalfromtheFederalservice.
III. GrieyanceRights
Youmayfilea grievanceof thisdiscipline.Asa memberof thebargainingunit
representedbytheNationalAssociationof ImmigrationJudges(NAIJ),youaresubjectto the
grievanceproceduresset forthin Article8 of thecollectivebargainingagreementbetweenthe
NAIJandtheOfficeoftheChieflmmigrationJudge,ExecutiveOfficeforImmigrationReview.
Sincerely,
MichaelC. McOoings
DeputyChiefImmigrationJudge
cc: Larry R.Dean
AssistantChiefImmigrationJudge
DeepaliNadkarni
AssistantChiefImmigrationJudge
4

From: Keller, Mary Beth (EOIR)
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:29 PM
To: Moutinho, Deborah (EOIR)
Subject: FW: Grievance Decision
Attachments: Signed Grievance Decision (IJ .pdf
- Grievance official upheld 1 day suspension.
From: Rosenblum, Jeff (EOIR)
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 11:51 AM
To: Keller, Mary Beth (EOIR)
Subject: Fw: Grievance Decision
Fyi
From: Wahowiak, Marlene (EOIR)
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 11:01 AM
To: Klein, Eliza (EOIR); Slavin, Denise (EOIR)
Cc: (EOIR); Dean, Larry R. (EOIR); Nadkarni, Deepali (EOIR)
Subject: Grievance Decision
All:
Please see attached.
Thank you,
Marlene Wahowiak
Associate General Counsel
EOIR/OGC-ELR
703-605
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
0000794002383002383

U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Office of the Chief Immigration Judge
5107 Leesburg Pike. Suite 2500
Falls Church, Virginia 22041
August 22, 2012
Denise Slavin
Vice President, NAU
Krome Processing Center
18201 SW 12th Street
Miami, Florida 33194
Eliza Klein
Grievance Chair, NAU
Immigration Court
536 Clark Street, Room B1330/1320
Chicago, Illinois 60605
Re: Grievance Decision (U
Dear Ms. Slavin and Ms. Klein:
This letter constitutes my decision on the July 18, 2012 grievance that you filed on behalf
of Immigration Judge (IJ) . Pursuant to Article 8.7(e) of the collective
bargaining agreement (CBA) between the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) and
the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), I held a grievance meeting on July 31,
2012. Ms. Slavin appeared by video-teleconference and Ms. Klein attended telephonically. IJ
declined the opportunity to appear. In your grievance, you challenge the June 6, 2012
decision issued by Deputy Chief Immigration Judge (DCIJ) Michael C. McGoings, which upheld
Assistant Chief Immigration Judge (ACIJ) Larry R. Dean's proposed one-day suspension of IJ
for inappropriate conduct.
In reaching my decision, I reviewed the April 11, 2012 proposed suspension issued by
ACIJ Dean (Proposal) (Tab A); IJ May 8, 2012 response (Response) (Tab B); an April
10, 2012 "Note to File" created by ACIJ Dean (Note to File) (Tab C); U May 24, 2012
supplemental response (Supplemental Response) (Tab D); DCIJ McGoings' June 6, 2012
decision letter (Decision) (Tab E); and NAIr s July 18, 2012 grievance letter (Grievance) (Tab
F). In addition, I carefully considered the presentations you each made during the July 31, 2012
grievance meeting.
For the reasons set forth below, I find that the deciding official properly considered the
relevant Douglas factors and that the one-day suspension was within the bounds of
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
0000794002384002384

reasonableness. To the extent your grievance also seeks counseling on stress management and
"potentially including additional training" for IJ , your request is granted. Grievance at 2.
Your grievance also sought the implementation of "better methods of communicating docket
reassignments at the ourt." Id This particular request is beyond the scope of this
disciplinary matter and thus, is taken under advisement.
Charge of Inappropriate Conduct
Preponderant evidence supports the charge of inappropriate conduct. Neither IJ
nor you as union representatives dispute that on March 28, 2012, was upset about an email
from ACIJ Dean concerning docket assignments in the Court. In addition, neither U
nor you dispute that in reacting to the email, U pproached Court Administrator
(CA) to voice frustration. Rather, the factual basis for the grievance centers
on the nature of U behavior while in ffice; the reasonableness of the
court staff's response to behavior; and the genuineness of IJ emorse thereafter.
NAIJ also objected to DCIJ McGoings' findings concerning discrepancies between U
two responses. Specifically, during the grievance meeting you contended that those
findings essentially labeled IJ a "liar." You also argued that IJ productivity,
particularly following the March 28, 2012 incident, directly contradicts DCIJ McGoings'
findings that the incident caused him to lose confidence in IJ ability to carry out
responsibilities and further, that a suspension would promote the efficiency of the service.
Regarding the events of March 28, 2012, I find that preponderant evidence shows that U
engaged in inappropriate conduct when approached CA in office. The
immediate reaction of the staff and their contemporaneous reporting of the incident to another IJ
in the office and to ACIJ Dean corroborate DCIJ McGoings' findings concerning U
conduct while in office. Specifically, I find that U N ntered
office, slammed the door, and proceeded to raise voice at for a measurable period of
time.' I find that the staff's response to overhearing this gave rise to a legitimate concern about
CA well-being, and that their contemplating contacting the Federal Protective Service
(FPS) was not an overreaction. 2
I also find it relevant that U has been counseled in the past about
temperament. Although IJ has not been formally disciplined for past behavior, I note
that was counseled in 2008 about emperament prior to receiving ermanent position.
I take note of NAIJ's argument that 1. t is a person. IJ should be mindful of this in
interactions with others at work. In addition, I also note that NAIJ indicated that LI has a hearing
deficiency which causes to speak loudly. II N ever made such a claim and no evidence was submitted on
that subject. Moreover, even if accepted as true, such a deficiency does not excuse the conduct in which
engaged.
2 NAIJ argues that the fact that FPS was not actually called is significant. I disagree. That court staff even
contemplated making such a call, and spoke to another IJ about it, is an indication of the level of disruption that
occurred in the workplace.
2
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
0000794002385002385

See Proposal Letter at 2. Moreover, as recently as October 2011, ACIJ Dean counseled h or
having referred to a respondent as an "ass." Id.
This prior history leads me to disagree with yours and IJ assessment of the
incident in office as simply one in which the perceptions those involved differed
from and further, that the staff overreacted. IJ view of prior history suggests
that is unaware of the affect behavior has on those around nitial response to
DCIJ McGoings, for example, reflects this attitude, particularly concerning the prior counseling
received. In nitial response, IJ tated, "To the extent that the proposed suspension
reflects a perception of a pattern of intemperance on my part, I deny that any such pattern exists
or that intemperance is part of my character." Response at 1 (emphasis added). IJ
proceeded to minimize the earlier events referenced in ACIJ Dean's proposal. See Proposal at 1.
Among other things, IJ excused a door-slamming incident in by blaming it on
an issue with homeowner's insurance and IJ also labeled
temperament issues raised during a meeting with Associate Deputy Attorney General David
Margolis about his becoming a permanent IJ as "other minor instances." Id. at 4. Regarding the
October 2011 incident, IJ haracterized it as an isolated event that was "truly regrettable
and has never been repeated . . . nor had I engaged in such conduct before[.]" Id.
In consideration of IJ subsequent response, I find that any substantive
difference between his two responses is not due to a lack of candor. I also do not interpret DCIJ
McGoings' letter as suggesting that IJ s a "liar." Rather, I credit IJ ubsequent
explanation that upon reading ACIJ Dean's memo, eflected on the incident and accepted the
perception held by others that had caused great offense in the office.
The issue of remorse dominated a considerable portion of the grievance hearing. I fmd
that IJ first response is telling about level of remorseat the time of the incident. In
that first response, IJ said approached the following day after being told
had upset . also said addressed the staff, at ACIJ Dean's suggestion. Even so, h
admitted expressing to "chagrin that certain members of the staff' considered
calling the FPS. Response at 3. lso strangely viewed the idea of calling the FPS as "a
threat" against for having raised issues to ttention.Id Although I credit U
for having apologized to the following day, I concur with DCIJ McGoings'
finding that U portrayal of the staffs consideration of calling the FPS as a "threat" to
be wholly without merit. Decision at 3. Indeed, that particular finding, as well as U
asking Ms. to admonish the staff fortheir conduct, leads me to conclude that while may
have been remorseful in nitial apology to J id not understand the
gravity of actions.
I do note that IJ supplemental response reflects a more conciliatory tone and a
greater appreciation of the effect of behavior on others. I agree with NAU that this
introspection, albeit delayed in this case, is desirable. I am hopeful that IJ ill use this
incident to make permanent and lasting changes in this behavior towards other in the workplace.
3
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
0000794002386002386

In considering IJ level of remorse, I also listened to the specific arguments you
made on behalf at the grievance meeting. Specifically, I considered the anecdotal
information you introduced during the grievance meeting concerning two particular actions
took following the incident, i.e., calling both U shortly afterwards. However,
in light of IJ voluntary absence from the grievance meeting, as well as the lack of
statements or other evidence in the record concerning these actions, I did not afford those
instances a substantial amount of weight. 3
Penalty
In your grievance, you argue that a suspension is unwarranted for the following reasons:
(1) it does not promote the efficiency of the service; (2) it controverts the goal of progressive
discipline; (3) it does not "accurately or meaningfully weigh" the Douglas factors; (4) the
suspension is based upon an "inaccurate statement of both the Agency's actions and case
management decisions," i.e., ACIJ Dean's email to the Court; (5) the decision erroneously
finds a loss of confidence in U bility to carry out responsibilities; and (6) the
decision unfairly characterizes IJ remorse as lacking credibility. Grievance at 1. I will
address each of these items in turn.
I disagree with your argument that a suspension in this instance would not promote the
efficiency of the service and that DCIJ McGoings erred in finding a loss of confidence in U
ability to perform responsibilities. The evidence shows a nexus between IJ
inappropriate conduct and its adverse affect on colleagues, the workplace, and
management's confidence in It is without question that on March 28, 2012, U
disrupted the workplace. conduct upset the Agency's onsite manager, as well as
the support staff The affect of ehavior on those court employees led to management's loss
of confidence in This formal discipline hopefully will act as a deterrent. By deterring
future outbursts by IJ I am confident that it will promote the efficiency of the federal
service.
I also disagree with your contention that the one-day suspension is not progressive
discipline. A one-day suspension for disrupting the workplace is well within the bounds of
reasonableness. See, e.g., Hunter v. Department of Justice, 110 M.S.P.R. 219, 224 (2008)
("Board will review the agency-imposed penalty only to determine if the agency considered all
the relevant factors and exercised management discretion within tolerable limits of
reasonableness."). I also reject the suggestion that the suspension comes as a result of a
miscommunication by the Agency. As DCIJ McGoings stated in his decision letter, work
assignments are solely within the purview of management. If an employee disagrees with an
assignment, the proper response should be to contact management and discuss the matter in a
professional manner, not through a temper tantrum in the workplace. Regarding U
While I did not hold IJ absence from the grievance meeting against I note that it
prevented me from following up with directly with questions about the incidents referenced
above and remorse generally.
4
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
0000794002387002387

credibility, as I discussed earlier, I do not find a lack of candor on art nor do I agree that
DCIJ McGoings suggested as much.
For the foregoing reasons, I find that the deciding official properly considered the
relevant Douglas factors and that the one-day suspension was within the bounds of
reasonableness. I considered IJ productivity, the contributions has made while
serving on details to other courts, and the absence of formal discipline for the earlier
temperament issues discussed herein. Notwithstanding these positive factors, I remind IJ N
that the Agency expects the highest standard of professionalism from I caution hat
future displays of intemperance will not be tolerated and could result in further discipline.
Sincerely,
oBrian M. O'Leary
Chief Immigration Judge
Attachments
cc: IJ
ACID Larry R. Dean
ACID Deepali Nadkarni
5
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
(b) (6) (b) (6)
(b) (6)
0000794002388002388

Ij Nugent Verified

More Related Content

Similar to Ij Nugent Verified

More from amjolaw

Recently uploaded

Ij Nugent Verified