When plaintiff Catherine Jackson received her termination notice, she “was surprised to see recent performance ratings that were flatly incorrect,” the lawsuit said. Jackson worked in the Office of Child Care “supporting the state of Alaska and American Indian tribes in their implementation of programs that help low-income families afford childcare.”
Jackson’s notice “reflected a recent performance rating of 3, but she had never received a score lower than 4. Defendants had clearly used an inaccurate personnel record in determining to include her in the RIF. She has not received an offer of reinstatement or reassignment. Ms. Jackson is 68 and struggling to find a new career to support her through to retirement; her retirement annuity would have vested in a few months.”
“Defendants did not seem to know where she worked”
Plaintiff Carrie Greene’s termination notice said she had received a 3 in a recent performance evaluation, even though “she had never received a score lower than 5” and in fact “had received incentive awards based on her outstanding performance every year,” the lawsuit said.
Greene, who worked in the Administration for Children and Families, seemed to be “included in the RIF because her personnel records incorrectly listed her duty station as the San Francisco, CA regional office, which was closed as part of the April 1 cuts,” the lawsuit said. But her team was based in Washington, DC.
Melissa Adams, a former Office of Grants Management employee, received a termination notice containing incorrect performance ratings along with “an even more fundamental issue: Defendants did not seem to know where she worked,” the lawsuit said. The defendants seemed to think that Adams was part of a Boston regional office, but she actually worked for a DC-based office and “worked remotely in Massachusetts pursuant to a longstanding reasonable accommodation,” the lawsuit said.
“Ms. Adams is a single mother searching for a new job to support her and her family,” the lawsuit said.
Plaintiff Vid Desai, former CIO of the FDA, received a termination notice that said “he had received a 3 in each of his most recent performance evaluations,” the lawsuit said. “But this was inaccurate: his previous three performance reviews should all have rounded up to 5. As a direct result, he lost eight years of retention credit, which should have been used to determine whether he would be retained, terminated, or offered alternative assignments.”
