MSPB, which hears appeals of disciplinary actions in addition to issuing reports on civil service issues, noted that an agency can take an “adverse action” up to and including removal, to discipline someone who has committed nepotism, which is one of the prohibited personnel practices, or PPPs.
“For an agency to take an adverse action against an employee, it is not required that the employee specifically commit a PPP. What is required is that the agency prove by preponderant evidence that the efficiency of the service would be promoted by the adverse action,” it said.
Additionally, because nepotism is a PPP, the Office of Special Counsel may ask the Board to act to impose a penalty, which similarly can range up to removal, along with debarment from federal employment for up to five years.
It warned: “When OSC files a complaint with MSPB regarding an alleged PPP, and MSPB finds that OSC has proven its case by preponderant evidence, the employing agency has no say in the penalty that MSPB imposes. An agency cannot protect an employee who commits a PPP, such as nepotism, if OSC opts to prosecute the case and the Board finds the charges supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In such cases, the Board, not the employing agency, decides the penalty.”
The report noted that MSPB precedent allows for discipline in cases where the charged person merely helped someone else commit nepotism, and in cases that might fall under the heading of poor judgment rather than a blatant violation. For example, it said, in a case where a manager wrote a letter of recommendation for his wife’s personnel file and evaluated her potential for promotion, the Board found that it was irrelevant whether the assessment was accurate—the issue was whether he used his position to support her attempts to obtain a promotion.