Mat founded his law firm in his kitchen in 2004. He has built it to be a multi-million dollar firm in 3 states. In March he left it all behind to serve his country. Mat is a Lt. Col. in the NY Army National Guard and is currently in Afghanistan for 400 days. This is his 3rd tour since 2008.

His deep rooted passion for his country is unmatched by many but should be recognized by all. Mat also requires that the firm provide winter coats to homeless veterans every Christmas, turkeys for all veterans for every Thanksgiving.

Every month there is a charitable organization that is donated to. There is an unknown big heart behind that rough and tough exterior. It’s pretty refreshing to see someone who puts human kind over the all mighty dollar.

A Marine Corps Reservist who just shipped out for boot camp is suing his former employer for allegedly firing him because he joined the military – but his ex-bosses at a Connecticut car dealership say it’s all a big misunderstanding.

Service supervisor Nick Saccomanno said he didn’t know that Derek Laaser was only going off to Marine Corps initial training and then returning, and since the business had to lay people off anyway, it made sense to discharge him.

“I personally was totally confused about his status,” Saccomanno told Military.com. “We would never, ever, ever think of denying him an opportunity to work and join the military.”

Saccomanno declined to discuss the issue further, but John Gilmore, a spokesman for the law firm representing the dealership, said Laaser never made clear he was just going into the Reserve force and would be back. So Saccomanno essentially took the mechanic’s news as a full resignation that happened to coincide with “a slowdown,” Gilmore said: “[Laaser] was leaving anyway, so to try to save other jobs” he was let go.

David Slassberg, the attorney representing Laaser, said the explanations he is now hearing “sound like revisionist history.”

“He [Laaser] was summoned into the office, and was told, ‘We’re letting you go,’” Slassberg told Military.com. Laaser went into a panic over losing access to a General Motors-affiliated training program at a local community college, and so he asked Sacccomanno to give him a letter that made clear he wasn’t being fired because he wasn’t a good mechanic.

Slassberg said the termination letter states Laaser was being discharged from the job because of his military service and that “this decision was based not on performance.”
Under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, or USERRA, meeting service commitments – whether for training or active-duty call-ups – are not grounds for job termination.

“Federal law clearly prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of military service,” Slassberg said. 
Slassberg said he has handled many employment-related cases, but this would be his first USERRA case.

According to a longtime Navy Reserve JAG officer and lawyer with Tully Rinckey PLLC, a Washington law firm that has handled many USERRA cases, the dealership may very well have made Laaser’s case for him if it did put in writing that he was being fired because of his military service.
“That would make it what we call a ‘Direct Evidence Case,’ … [that is] there is direct evidence of discrimination and the evidence is not circumstantial,” Sterling DeRamus told Military.com.

But these cases are very rare, he said, and if Laaser’s supervisors did put it in writing, they either didn’t understand the law or decided to disregard it.

“Most likely the service manager will be getting a quick lesson in USERRA and issuing a formal apology and rehiring this Marine very shortly – plus paying back pay and attorney fees,” DeRamus said.

Despite ongoing reports of malfunctions with the plane’s oxygen-supply system, the Air Force has urged its pilots to keep soaring into the sky on the F-22s. At least one pilot has been killed during a malfunction so far.

Major Jeremy Gordon and Captain Josh Wilson appeared on CBS News’ 60 Minutes last week to announce their continuing worries over the Raptor stealth jet. The pilots spoke out against the craft while accompanied by a US congressman, Representative Adam Kinzinger (R-Illinois), an escort insisted by the pilots because they feared that the military would reprimand them for their disclosure. Now both say they are willing to re-board Raptor jets, even after going on national television to voice their concerns with the aircraft. That might not be enough, though.

Since announcing their issues with the craft on 60 Minutes, other lawmakers within the US Congress have asked for further investigations with the Raptor fleet. Even with this urging, though, the Pentagon might follow through with a military procedure that could pull both pilots out of the ranks of America’s Armed Forces.

Although Congress is considering a probe of the plane, the US Air Force has yet to announce that it will reverse a letter of reprimand that was sent to Capt. Wilson. The pilot’s attorney, Frederic Morgan, tells the Daily Press that his client is willing to fly, but the Pentagon has yet to approve that privilege for him.

If the letter of reprimand remains on file, it could lead to a meeting with the Flying Evaluation Board and eventually the termination of the pilot’s career. This news comes despite Rep. Kinzinger’s representation as an elected official who has vowed to protect the pilots.

“Congress granted protection to whistleblowers in general and specifically military to say: if you have a concern, you know – not something obviously little – but something pretty big and serious… you have a right to talk to your congressman,” Rep. Kinzinger told CBS last week, “because just ’cause you join the military doesn’t mean you give up your right to citizenship.”

Adding to the news program, Morgan revealed that General Janet Wolfenbarger informed the Senate Armed Services Committee that both pilots “are fully protected from reprisal by the Military Whistleblower Protection Act.” The military has yet to reverse the letter of reprimand, though.

In an article last year for the Military Times, Mathew B. Tully explains that such a letter could essentially end the career of a serviceman such as Capt. Wilson.

“An LOR, if filed in your official military personnel file, can ruin your prospects for promotion or lead to separation,”wrote Tully.

Following a 2010 incident in Afghanistan that resulted in the deaths of several civilians, then-commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, authorized four LORs for high-ranking officers involved in the mishap. On their own part, the Los Angeles Times explained, “A letter of reprimand usually means that an officer’s career is effectively over.”

Frederic Morgan acknowledged that despite the backing of the some congressmem, that could be the outcome his client will face.

“We now look forward to the prompt withdrawal of the Letter of Reprimand against Captain Wilson, the termination of the Flying Evaluation Board proceeding, the reinstatement of his job and his promotion to Major, and the return of these fine officers to the service of their Nation at the controls of the airplane they love,” Morgan says in a statement.

Rep. Kinzinger also adds that he believes that the Air Force “want[s] to solve this problem” and should revoke the letter, although they have yet to formally do so, reports the Daily Press.

As RT reported on Thursday, sources within the US intelligence community say that the CIA is opening up a probe of their own into the separate matter of the leaking of classified information related to the alleged al-Qaeda bomb plot that was foiled this week. If those reports are confirmed, that would make only the second time this week that the Obama administration has gone after whistleblowers for leaking information.

Tully Rinckey of the District appointed Sterling DeRamus of counsel in the military law and federal employment law practice.

Convicted criminals and other people with arrest records should find it easier to land a job, thanks to a new policy announced last week by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

• Policy bans employers from using arrest and conviction record as sole basis to turn away applicants, unless there is a compelling business reason to do so
• Refusal to hire people with criminal records had disproportionate affect on employment potential for African-Americans
• People fired or denied a job based on criminal record can now file a complaint with the EEOC

Impossible To Find a Job

In what could be a game-changing break for people with arrest records, the EEOC has updated its civil rights policies to provide stronger safeguards against applicants and employees being discriminated against based on their criminal history.

Previously, employers could toss out applications submitted by people with convictions, or even just arrests, with impunity. In a hyper-competitive job market, it was an easy way to reduce what could be hundreds of applications for a single position.

The problem was, for the some 65 million Americans who have been arrested or convicted of a crime, the screening process could make it almost impossible to get a job. What’s more, the EEOC found, since black and Hispanic men are arrested at a rate two to three times more frequently than Caucasian men, criminal screenings were disproportionately creating obstacles to minorities seeking jobs. “National data supports a finding that criminal record exclusions have a disparate impact based on race and national origin,” the commission said in its report.

Compelling Business Reason

Under the new policy, companies can still consider criminal records, but can not make them the sole basis of excluding someone from employment, unless there is a compelling business reason to do so– i.e. a job that needs a high security clearance, or might involve handling large sums or cash.

Instead, the employer must consider the whole of the circumstances of the arrest or conviction before deciding whether or not to hire somebody– when it occurred, what exactly happened, how the crime might relate to the potential job and the applicant’s behavior in the years since the offense.

A 10-year-old DUI, for example, would probably not qualify as a reason to not hire a person as a retail clerk, all other factors being equal.

“It’s a pretty exciting development,” says John Mahoney, a Washington, D.C.-based employment attorney with Tulley Rinckey. “It’s going to have a major impact on how both private and public sector employers hire.”

Knee-Jerk Reaction

The burden is now on businesses to prove that they won’t hire someone with a record for legitimate, and not discriminatory, reasons. “They have to show how in regard to that particular applicant or that particular job, their specific arrest or conviction excludes them from being considered from being able to hold the position at issue,” Mahoney says. “You can’t rely on that knee-jerk reaction to exclude someone from employment.”

Data shows that some 90 percent of employers look into arrest and conviction records, up significantly from previous decades. “With the ease of online criminal background checks, it’s very easy for employers to find out about that information,” says Mahoney, resulting in cascading difficulty for ex-cons, or even people who made one dumb mistake, to get back on their feet.

Some states and localities already have similar protections, as well as “ban the box” style legislation which bars employers from asking about criminal history until an applicant has already passed the first round of screening. The EEOC policy now escalates exclusion of people with criminal records to the federal level, and applicants who believe they have been unfairly turned away, or employees who have been fired, can now take up the matter with the commission.

“The employee can make a Title VII discrimination complaint based on being excluded from employment,” Mahoney explains. Then the company will have some explaining to do. “Why is it consistent with business necessity that you fired this person? What about this person’s background check or conviction record had anything to do with basic functions of job you were hiring for?” the attorney lists off. “If they can’t prove that, then they lose.”

Tully Rinckey of the District appointed Raven L. Hall attorney in its federal employment law practice.

By Mark D. Roth

Employees who see wrongdoing by their superiors are rightfully cautious in deciding to “blow the whistle” on fraud, waste, and abuse for fear of retaliation. The latest striking example of federal employees’ reluctance to disclose obvious waste is the so-called “GSA scandal” in which 300 employees were assigned training at the M Resort Spa Casino outside Las Vegas.

The outrageous lavishness of the $823,000 conference, which included sessions with mind readers, is well-documented. What is not known is why only one brave individual reported the gross waste of funds to the agency’s inspector general while the rest of the trainees somehow rationalized that this was either business as usual, not a mess that they wanted to step into, or perhaps was just not serious enough to report.

The GSA scandal begs the question as to whether there are some federal employees who do not know what qualifies as a “gross waste of funds” under the Whistleblower Protection Act (5 U.S.C. §2302). The WPA makes it a prohibited personnel practice for agencies to retaliate against employees who report through the proper channels (e.g., Office of Special Counsel, an agency’s inspector general) “gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.”

One problem here is that all of these types of wrongdoing are only just very generally described in the WPA. It is no surprise then that 58 percent of federal employees surveyed said they would not blow the whistle due to concerns that an event might not “rise to the level of fraud, waste abuse, unlawful behavior, or a safety or health danger,” according to a recent Merit Systems Protection Board report. Another 58 percent said they might not disclose wrongdoing because of concerns it is not serious enough.

It is, of course, important to know that so long as the employee “reasonably believes” that the wrongdoing rises to the level covered by the WPA, he or she has the right to disclose and be protected from reprisal. Nevertheless, it would not hurt to briefly refresh our memories as to what qualifies as a “gross waste of funds” under the law.

Almost two decades ago, the MSPB attempted to define this term, noting that Congress did not establish a test for a “gross waste of funds.” Relying on Black’s Law Dictionary, the Board concluded in Nafus v. Dep’t of the Army (1993) that this term “constitutes a more than debatable expenditure that is significantly out of proportion to the benefit reasonably expected to accrue to the government.”

Nafus involved a Department of the Army computer programming analyst who worked at the Watervliet Arsenal in upstate New York. The computer programmer was removed for unacceptable performance after he protested the purchase of what he believed was an excessive amount of personal computers and software. He appealed this adverse action to the MSPB, claiming that the arsenal retaliated against him for blowing the whistle on a gross waste of funds and gross mismanagement.

The employee claimed that four out of seven computers the arsenal purchased were unnecessary and cost approximately $12,000, or less than 1 percent of the arsenal’s annual computer budget. The Board found that these expenditures did not equate to a gross waste of funds or gross mismanagement. However, it cautioned that “[a]ny allegation of gross waste of funds must be looked at in context, and here the allegation of gross waste was that these items were purchased at all, not the cost of the items.”

In subsequent whistleblower reprisal appeals, the Board found in Van EE v. Environmental Protection Agency (1994) that an EPA electrical engineer did report a gross waste of funds when he when he testified before Congress about a $400,000 desert tortuous study, which he deemed was unnecessary and inconsistent with a legislative mandate. Likewise, the Board found a gross waste of funds in Parikh v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs (2008), in which a VA physician reported that the agency kept a facility targeted for closure fully staffed even as its workload was transitioned to other facilities.

Deciding to become a whistleblower is not an easy decision to make. It can be rife with serious negative ramifications for the employee. It is not unusual for very good people who are excellent employees to suddenly become subjects of an investigation or alleged poor performers despite years of good performance reviews. In making the decision whether or not to disclose a perceived improper management decision, employees should contact an attorney who specializes in federal employment law.

It is crucial that federal employees who have disclosed alleged wrongdoing and are being subjected to retaliation not “go it alone.” They must be represented by counsel. An attorney knowledgeable in federal employees’ right and avenues for relief could help them prepare a complaint to the Office of Special Counsel or represent them before the MSPB if the OSC decides not to pursue the matter or does not act within 120 days of the filing of the complaint.

Mark D. Roth is the former long-time general counsel of the American Federation of Government Employees. He is a union development specialist and senior counsel at Tully Rinckey PLLC, a multi-state federal employment law firm with offices in Washington, D.C., Arlington, Va. and Albany, N.Y. He concentrates his practice on federal labor law and can be reached at mroth@fedattorney.com.

Military Lawyer and former Army JAG Attorney Greg Rinckey is called on by CNN to provide live perspective on a mysterious investigation surrounding the death of U.S. soldier after he collapses while speaking to his wife via Skype.

Rinckey weighs in on where the investigation goes from here and provides some insight on why it’s taking a long time to get answers.