|
|
Post by mikejf on Jun 16, 2015 11:10:46 GMT -5
Last week I received my final resolution of my appeal regarding the incomplete application--I made a common mistake, not putting months down in terms of start and end dates. but I have more than 20 years of experience and mathematically that would not matter.
Second mistake was assuming my job---counsel in a litigating arm of a federal agency---was 100 percent litigation and required no estimate of the time spend in litigation.
Anyway, my appeal was denied. Would appreciated any thoughts--input re: any recourse I have from this decision--interested if anyone is in a class action lawsuit to challenge these findings. Thanks all for your input.
|
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on Jun 16, 2015 11:26:37 GMT -5
Welcome to the Board Mike15! I wish I could offer you more comfort, but I'm not so sure you'd have much of a cause of action. The best I can think of is, having learned from this experience, is to do it differently next time.
|
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Jun 16, 2015 12:39:40 GMT -5
One piece of advice, even though it has been said hundreds of times by myriad folks on this board:
Read the application instructions very, very carefully.
This is also the rationale behind a dismissal of any lawsuit you would bring concerning your dismissed appeal.
If you really want to stay in the game, I am sure the application process will open up in a year or two. OPM is going through the current list and they will need fresh lists of folks. Good luck!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2015 13:07:53 GMT -5
Last week I received my final resolution of my appeal regarding the incomplete application--I made a common mistake, not putting months down in terms of start and end dates. but I have more than 20 years of experience and mathematically that would not matter. Second mistake was assuming my job---counsel in a litigating arm of a federal agency---was 100 percent litigation and required no estimate of the time spend in litigation. Anyway, my appeal was denied. Would appreciated any thoughts--input re: any recourse I have from this decision--interested if anyone is in a class action lawsuit to challenge these findings. Thanks all for your input. Just out of curiousity, in light to your admission of errors that resulted in disqualification, what would be your argument on appeal as to the basis that OPM erred? |
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jun 16, 2015 15:22:22 GMT -5
Years ago and on this Board a fatal mistake was not putting down the precise date of your Bar admission. I sympathize with your situation, but perhaps a third mistake was thinking that this was an application for a job, per se, rather than a hurdle designed in part to ensure that it is read verbatim and answered as such. OPM is using this as a tool to winnow out folks who didn't understand this or made assumptions or were just an itsy bitsy careless. A fourth mistake was thinking that the reader thought like you, a lawyer.
Apply again and learn from your mistakes. Good luck!
|
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Jun 16, 2015 15:42:31 GMT -5
A class action suit? Really? No. Wait for the next opening, and pay better attention to the details. Good luck!
|
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Jun 16, 2015 18:52:24 GMT -5
For government jobs, they do not extrapolate the intent at all. You can have 30 years glorious years experience in litigation and be applying for a litigation job, and it is no more than working at McDonald's (nothing wrong with working there, I did it for years  ) if you don't answer the questions asked. Think of a room full of GS 4 folks with a check off sheet with the details of the job announcement in a check off format going down your answers. Many lessons learned about applying for government work in this process! |
|
|
|
Post by agilitymom on Jun 17, 2015 5:43:38 GMT -5
Actually, think of a contract employee (who isn't paid very much b/c the contractor wouldn't be making money if they paid a lot) who has been told, "look through these applications and sort the ones who have xx% of time spent in litigation." In any dealings w/ OPM you have to be very precise, yet repetitive and simple/stupid. C'est la vie.
|
|
|
|
Post by zebra51 on Jun 17, 2015 12:18:27 GMT -5
You can always file with MSPB with an Employment Practices claim. It is a hard one to win but is a path. The Zane case about the email notification was an Employment Practice case.
An applicant for employment who believes that an employment practice applied to her by OPM violates a basic requirement in 5 C.F.R. § 300.103 is entitled to appeal to the Board. 5 C.F.R. § 300.104(a). The Board has jurisdiction under 5 C.F.R. § 300.104(a) when two conditions are met: first, the appeal must concern an employment practice that OPM is involved in administering; and second, the appellant must make a nonfrivolous allegation that the employment practice violated one of the “basic requirements” for employment practices set forth in 5 C.F.R. § 300.103. Zane v OPM
|
|
|
|
Post by owl on Jun 17, 2015 14:48:41 GMT -5
From the job announcement itself (emphases added):
Therefore, you must quantify the time associated with any claimed experience in terms of the specific dates it was acquired, including the month and year for the start and end dates, such as May 2006-December 2006. Also, if you provide an example of qualifying experience that overlaps with other non-qualifying experience, you must provide the percentage of time spent on each type of work.
Now, by the specific terms of the language above, one only needed to specify percentages if one told OPM of overlapping "qualifying" and "non-qualifying" experience in his/her narrative response demonstrating the requisite 7 years of "qualifying" experience. So if only qualifying experience was described, it would seem to be wrong to disqualify somebody solely for failing to specify "100%". (With that said, I did put a "100%" descriptor in my narrative even though I did not have any non-qualifying experience, because better safe than sorry.)
Failure to put down months and years, though, when that was specifically called for, is going to be hard to overcome.
I can also see where (just for example, not saying this is what the OP must have done) just saying one worked as a litigation attorney for some agency's OGC for 20 years can legitimately be interpreted by OPM as not specifying qualifying experience. Especially in federal gov't, some attorneys (and ALJs for that matter) are managers and do not litigate/judge.
OPM's gatekeeping on these bases was picky, but not likely to be struck down as irrational. I'd have to assume the "irrational employment practice" argument on these has been tried before, anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by luckylady2 on Jun 19, 2015 12:34:43 GMT -5
Also - most litigating attorneys in federal government do not actually do 100% litigation. We all have a certain amount of giving speeches, attending CLE and job training (unrelated to litigation, like harrasment training etc), teaching/mentoring/supervising, and the general administrivia of the job. Taking this into account, a more truthful estimate might be more like 95%, 90% or somesuch for these attorneys.
I had well over 7 years, too. It didn't hurt at all to be pretty conservative in my percentage estimates, and taking the language of the job announcement seriously, I put percentages for each job, regardless. Clearly OPM was looking for a list of numbers that it could add, and the sum of the numbers the candidate gave in response to the prompt had to be 7 years or greater to qualify.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2015 11:36:05 GMT -5
Clearly OPM was looking for a list of numbers that it could add, and the sum of the numbers the candidate gave in response to the prompt had to be 7 years or greater to qualify. I wish I could remember what exact percentages I gave them, but I can't imagine it added up to 7 years' worth of experience out of the 8 or 9 years I've been practicing. I ended up getting cut at the DC stage. |
|
|
|
Post by moopigsdad on Jun 22, 2015 13:08:06 GMT -5
Clearly OPM was looking for a list of numbers that it could add, and the sum of the numbers the candidate gave in response to the prompt had to be 7 years or greater to qualify. I wish I could remember what exact percentages I gave them, but I can't imagine it added up to 7 years' worth of experience out of the 8 or 9 years I've been practicing. I ended up getting cut at the DC stage. So, superbonbon are you telling us you should have been cut earlier because your percentage of time in "qualifying legal experience" was less than 7 years worth of time? Well if that is what you are saying you shouldn't feel so bad you were cut at the D.C. stage. However, if you misspoke and meant something else in regards to your "qualifying experience", I am indeed sorry you were cut at the D.C. stage. However, many here on this Board will tell you just getting to the register doesn't guarantee you of anything either. |
|
) if you don't answer the questions asked. Think of a room full of GS 4 folks with a check off sheet with the details of the job announcement in a check off format going down your answers. Many lessons learned about applying for government work in this process! 
