C
cpm7752
Guest
What is the name of your state?undefinedWhat is the name of your state? District of Columbia
Pre Hearing conference is schedule to determine if OEA has jursdiction over appeal. Plantiff is a at will employee. Management Supervisory Service. OEA has no jurisdiction over MSS employee's. Plantiff will argue that the Agency violated proceedures as it related to employment regulations and MSS contract and addition employer violated employment regulations (law) as it relates to the statues governing his employee under Management Supervisory Service.
Pursuant to $ 101 (d) of OPRAA amended $1-1606 D.C. Code $ 1-606 (a) is amended as follows: (a) An employee may appeal a final agency decision affecting a performance rating which results in removal of the employee… and adverse action for cause that results in removal, reduction in grade or suspension for 10 days or more… or a reduction in force… Thus $ 101 (d) does not restrict OEA jurisdiction to employee appeals from the following personnel actions: a performance rating that results in removal; a final agency decision effecting and adverse action for cause that results in removal, reduction in grade, or suspension of 10 days or more; or a reduction in force.
Therefore the office has jurisdiction appeals from suspensions, agency decisions affecting a performance rating which results in removal of the employee and adverse action for cause that results in removal and reduction in grade.
OEA MATTER No. 1601-0123-03 Employee alleged demotion was not properly administered in accordance with District of Columbia Personnel Regulations, Chapter 38 Part 1 Section No 3803 Method of Making Management Supervisory Service Appointment, No. 3806 Qualification Standards and General Requirements for Selection Procedures No. 3808 Non Competitive Placement. No 3812 Placement by Reassignment or Demotion. Employee does not disputes dispute that employee is an MSS Employee, but does disputed that the Agency entered into a contractual relationship with the employee to reduce his Grade to Facility Manager 1640 Grade 11 Step 4.
The Employee accepted and signed a contract for the MSS appointment 8/26/02 for Facility Manager 1640 Grade 12 Step 1. Since that time the Agency has failed to implement a Performance Management Program (PMP) or contract; refer to OEA MATTER No. 1601-0123-03 filed with OEA in June 2003
Received letter dated February 19, 2004 on February 24, 2004 informing me (Gregory Lumpkin that “you are being suspended without pay for a five day period from your position of Supervisory Facility Manager, DC Dept. of Parks and Recreation, MS-1640-Grade 11 step4, effective March 1, 2004. This suspension is base on your failure/neglect to carry out assignments”. “This suspension is effective from Monday, March 1, 2004 through Friday, March 5, 2004. You are to return to duty on Monday, March 8, 2004.” OEA MATTER No. J-0046-04 Filed in March 2004 .
Employee argue ‘s that as Pursuant to $ 101 (d) of OPRAA amended $1-1606 D.C. Code $ 1-606 (a) the Agency (Bureaucracy) failed to follow the statues or laws of the District of Columbia implemented by the District of Columbia Government. In addition base on the employee burden of proof and evidence already submitted to the OEA and subsequent actions by the Agency and evidentiary facts, Employee wants to exercise his contingent right to file a contingent claim based on the advisement of initial decision in OEA Matter J-0046-04. "Petition for Review"
In addition employee will argue that the Bureaucracy attempt to cover-up its failed Performance Measures under the Performance Management Program beginning in reference OEA Matter No 1601-0123-03 the Agency dismiss the Employee in effort to cover-up the facts in issue as it have a direct impact on the Agency Director Performance Plan and Agencies Performance Goals established by the Mayor of the District of Columbia and the City Administrator.
The Aggregate of events since initial filing with OEA employee ask the court to initiate jurisdiction clause as it relates to due process and the Employee’s Fifth Amendment Rights and that the agency did not have a contract at the Facility Manager 1640 Grade 11 level. Also the Agency fail to comply with Constitutional Law and the fact that current District of Columbia Law might be in conflict or in violation of the Constitution or its Amendments.
My Service Computation Date was change by the Agency and Employee requesting a correction because it directly impacts retirement and severance pay earned and owed to the employee. See Form 1.
OEA MATTER No. J-0046-04 Filed in March 2004 Plantiff will argue 1-615.04 "Public employee's as fiduciaries for consumer protection." Text B I refuse to tranport employee's in unsafe motor vehicle. Specifically five employee's and myself during a snow emergency in a vehicle with two broken doors and only two passenger seats with equipment in it on icy and snow streets. the above law says,
"Any individual or class of individuals may commernc a civil actionon his or her or their own behalf against any employee or employee'sin any agency for breach of a fiduciary duty upon showing that said employee or employees by his or her their acts or ommissions has or have exposed said individual or class of individuals to an injury or harm, or risk of injury or harm, from which they are to be portected by the employee or employees. Such action may be brought in the Superior Court of the Distric of Columbia, through the Corporation Counsel, shal defed andy employee or employee against who such actio is commenced".
The purpose of the Pre Hearing is to argue wether the court has jurisdiction. Plantiff wiil argue the following:
1. Demotion was not properly adminstered and Plantiff did not have a written or oral contract at the Facility Manager 1640 Grade 11 level.
2. That the five day suspension resulted in termination fifteen days later That the Agency suspended the employee in violation of fiduciary consumer protection laws (Plantiff refuse to transport employee's in unsafe vehicle ( Plantiff have copies vehicle repair work order one day after incident showing deficiencies and Agency attemp to fix problem after Plantiff indicated vehicle unsafe.
3.Plantiff will show a paper trail of Recent Memorandums from February thru March showing to the Agency Director exhibiting valid reasons for non delivery of custormer service.
3. Reason is March 31, 2004 Performce Evalutions are due and after almost two years of service Plantiff has not recieved or sign a Performance Contract as require by DC Personel Regulations Law Perfromanc Management Plan Chapter 14 which Must be competed by Oct. 31 or within 30 days of hire.
The goal is to have OEA hear this case. So I have to agrue why I think OEA have jurisdiction.
I need your help Thanks
Pre Hearing conference is schedule to determine if OEA has jursdiction over appeal. Plantiff is a at will employee. Management Supervisory Service. OEA has no jurisdiction over MSS employee's. Plantiff will argue that the Agency violated proceedures as it related to employment regulations and MSS contract and addition employer violated employment regulations (law) as it relates to the statues governing his employee under Management Supervisory Service.
Pursuant to $ 101 (d) of OPRAA amended $1-1606 D.C. Code $ 1-606 (a) is amended as follows: (a) An employee may appeal a final agency decision affecting a performance rating which results in removal of the employee… and adverse action for cause that results in removal, reduction in grade or suspension for 10 days or more… or a reduction in force… Thus $ 101 (d) does not restrict OEA jurisdiction to employee appeals from the following personnel actions: a performance rating that results in removal; a final agency decision effecting and adverse action for cause that results in removal, reduction in grade, or suspension of 10 days or more; or a reduction in force.
Therefore the office has jurisdiction appeals from suspensions, agency decisions affecting a performance rating which results in removal of the employee and adverse action for cause that results in removal and reduction in grade.
OEA MATTER No. 1601-0123-03 Employee alleged demotion was not properly administered in accordance with District of Columbia Personnel Regulations, Chapter 38 Part 1 Section No 3803 Method of Making Management Supervisory Service Appointment, No. 3806 Qualification Standards and General Requirements for Selection Procedures No. 3808 Non Competitive Placement. No 3812 Placement by Reassignment or Demotion. Employee does not disputes dispute that employee is an MSS Employee, but does disputed that the Agency entered into a contractual relationship with the employee to reduce his Grade to Facility Manager 1640 Grade 11 Step 4.
The Employee accepted and signed a contract for the MSS appointment 8/26/02 for Facility Manager 1640 Grade 12 Step 1. Since that time the Agency has failed to implement a Performance Management Program (PMP) or contract; refer to OEA MATTER No. 1601-0123-03 filed with OEA in June 2003
Received letter dated February 19, 2004 on February 24, 2004 informing me (Gregory Lumpkin that “you are being suspended without pay for a five day period from your position of Supervisory Facility Manager, DC Dept. of Parks and Recreation, MS-1640-Grade 11 step4, effective March 1, 2004. This suspension is base on your failure/neglect to carry out assignments”. “This suspension is effective from Monday, March 1, 2004 through Friday, March 5, 2004. You are to return to duty on Monday, March 8, 2004.” OEA MATTER No. J-0046-04 Filed in March 2004 .
Employee argue ‘s that as Pursuant to $ 101 (d) of OPRAA amended $1-1606 D.C. Code $ 1-606 (a) the Agency (Bureaucracy) failed to follow the statues or laws of the District of Columbia implemented by the District of Columbia Government. In addition base on the employee burden of proof and evidence already submitted to the OEA and subsequent actions by the Agency and evidentiary facts, Employee wants to exercise his contingent right to file a contingent claim based on the advisement of initial decision in OEA Matter J-0046-04. "Petition for Review"
In addition employee will argue that the Bureaucracy attempt to cover-up its failed Performance Measures under the Performance Management Program beginning in reference OEA Matter No 1601-0123-03 the Agency dismiss the Employee in effort to cover-up the facts in issue as it have a direct impact on the Agency Director Performance Plan and Agencies Performance Goals established by the Mayor of the District of Columbia and the City Administrator.
The Aggregate of events since initial filing with OEA employee ask the court to initiate jurisdiction clause as it relates to due process and the Employee’s Fifth Amendment Rights and that the agency did not have a contract at the Facility Manager 1640 Grade 11 level. Also the Agency fail to comply with Constitutional Law and the fact that current District of Columbia Law might be in conflict or in violation of the Constitution or its Amendments.
My Service Computation Date was change by the Agency and Employee requesting a correction because it directly impacts retirement and severance pay earned and owed to the employee. See Form 1.
OEA MATTER No. J-0046-04 Filed in March 2004 Plantiff will argue 1-615.04 "Public employee's as fiduciaries for consumer protection." Text B I refuse to tranport employee's in unsafe motor vehicle. Specifically five employee's and myself during a snow emergency in a vehicle with two broken doors and only two passenger seats with equipment in it on icy and snow streets. the above law says,
"Any individual or class of individuals may commernc a civil actionon his or her or their own behalf against any employee or employee'sin any agency for breach of a fiduciary duty upon showing that said employee or employees by his or her their acts or ommissions has or have exposed said individual or class of individuals to an injury or harm, or risk of injury or harm, from which they are to be portected by the employee or employees. Such action may be brought in the Superior Court of the Distric of Columbia, through the Corporation Counsel, shal defed andy employee or employee against who such actio is commenced".
The purpose of the Pre Hearing is to argue wether the court has jurisdiction. Plantiff wiil argue the following:
1. Demotion was not properly adminstered and Plantiff did not have a written or oral contract at the Facility Manager 1640 Grade 11 level.
2. That the five day suspension resulted in termination fifteen days later That the Agency suspended the employee in violation of fiduciary consumer protection laws (Plantiff refuse to transport employee's in unsafe vehicle ( Plantiff have copies vehicle repair work order one day after incident showing deficiencies and Agency attemp to fix problem after Plantiff indicated vehicle unsafe.
3.Plantiff will show a paper trail of Recent Memorandums from February thru March showing to the Agency Director exhibiting valid reasons for non delivery of custormer service.
3. Reason is March 31, 2004 Performce Evalutions are due and after almost two years of service Plantiff has not recieved or sign a Performance Contract as require by DC Personel Regulations Law Perfromanc Management Plan Chapter 14 which Must be competed by Oct. 31 or within 30 days of hire.
The goal is to have OEA hear this case. So I have to agrue why I think OEA have jurisdiction.
I need your help Thanks
Last edited:
