Edgar M. King v. District of Columbia Office of Employee Appeals - Initial Decision - April 7, 2008

Sep 16, 2026

Upload by Ophelia

Initial Decision in OEA Matter No. 2401-0182-99R07 addresses an appeal by Edgar M. King (pro se) after remand. The Office considers whether the agency followed one round of lateral competition procedures under D.C. Official Code § 1-624.08(d) in calculating the employee’s RIF service computation date (RIF-SCD). The decision also addresses whether the Office has jurisdiction regarding severance pay, including whether any reinstatement back benefits would include an entitlement to severance.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryGeneral

FormatPDF

Pages11

Reading Time4 min

AccessFree to download

Background

Procedural history and remand

Summary disposition standard

Issues

Findings of Fact

THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE THE OFFICE OF EMPLOYEE APPEALS IN THE MATTER OF EDGAR M. KING, Employee V. ) ) OEA Matter No.: 2401-0182-99R07) ) ) Date of Issuance: April 7, 2008) ) Rohulamin Quander, Esq.) Senior Administrative Judge D.C. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ) Agency ) ____________________________________) Edgar M. King, pro se Joan Murphy, Agency Representative INITIAL DECISION Background This matter was returned to the Office of Employee Appeals (“Office”) upon Order of Remand, issued June 15, 2007, by Judge Leonard Braman of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, with instructions. Judge Braman’s Order stated,“. . . that this matter is hereby remanded to the District of Columbia Office of Employee Appeals for the limited purpose of considering Petitioner’s entitlement to reopen OEA Matter No. 2401-0182-99 dealing with Petitioner’s reduction-in-force claim and, if the determination is in Petitioner’s favor, to determine the claim on its merits.” The case was originally assigned to Blanca Torres, formerly an administrative judge (“AJ”) in the Office. Because AJ Torres is no longer a member of the Office staff, upon remand the matter was assigned to this AJ on August 7, 2007 . I convened a Status Conference on October 16, 2007, at which time both Edgar M. King, Employee, pro se, and Fred Staten, Jr., Agency’s representative, were present. The record reflects that when this matter was previously before the Office, the case was closed upon an indication that it had been “settled.” Employee disputes the record as a mischaracterization of what occurred, asserting anew that the effect of closing OEA No. 2401-0182-99R07 Page 2 of 11 out his case and marking it as “settled,” deprived him of due process and a timely addressing of the merits ofthe issues at hand. Prior to the convening of the Status Conference, each party filed supplemental documents for the record, seeking to narrow the scope of what needs to be decided at this time. Employee requested an evidentiary hearing, further indicating that he wished to have sworn testimony in order to address the issues at hand. Pursuant to OEA Rule 616, Summary Disposition, and OEA Rule 625, Evidentiary Hearings, the discretion of whether an evidentiary hearing is necessary, rests solely with the deciding AJ. Where there is no genuine dispute on the issues of fact that remain to be decided, an evidentiary hearing is deemed to be unnecessary. I have evaluated the record and determined that, based jupon the submitted documents and record created to date, there are no genuine issues of fact outstanding. Therefore, I am able to find and note the relevant facts, make the appropriate conclusions of law required, and then apply the applicable law, incidental to this Initial Decision. As such, there is no need to convene an evidentiary hearing. The record is now closed. ISSUES The issues to be decided are: 1) Whether Agency correctly adhered to the one round of lateral competition procedures outlined in D.C. Official Code § 1-624.08(d) when determining Employee’s reduction in force service computation date (RIF-SCD), pursuant to Chapter 24 ofthe D.C. Personnel Manual? 2) If the Office determines that Agency adhered to the RIF-SCD procedures when Employee was separated from service, does the Office have jurisdiction to award Employee severance pay? 3) If the Office determines that Agency failed to adhere to the RIF-SCD procedure and Employee is ordered to be reinstated, with back benefits awarded, does the Office have jurisdiction to determine whether the benefit includes an Employee entitlement to receive severance pay? 1 FINDINGS OF FACT 1) Employee was a Vocational Development Specialist, DS-11, with the Agency, assigned to Agency’s Youth Center in Lorton, Virginia. Employee was RIFed from the Agency, effective September 25, 1999, due to the mandated closure of all of Agency’s facilities and operations at that site.

FAQs

Why was the case returned on remand in OEA Matter No. 2401-0182-99R07?

The case was remanded by order of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for limited review of the petitioner’s entitlement to reopen the matter regarding his reduction-in-force claim and, if favorable, adjudication on the merits.

What issue does the Office consider regarding the RIF-SCD calculation?

Whether the agency correctly adhered to the one round of lateral competition procedures under D.C. Official Code § 1-624.08(d) when determining the employee’s reduction-in-force service computation date pursuant to the D.C. Personnel Manual.

Does the Office have jurisdiction to award severance pay in this matter?

The decision addresses whether jurisdiction exists to award severance pay, and, if reinstatement with back benefits is ordered, whether the Office can determine whether those benefits include an entitlement to severance pay.

Sep 16, 2026

Upload by Ophelia