Public Employee Disciplinary Types

Formal disciplinary action is initiated for a failure to uphold the professional standards required of public servants. Employees must adhere to established conduct rules to maintain public trust.

Common grounds for discipline include:

• Integrity & Ethics: Violation of law, conflicts of interest, bribery, or criminal conviction involving moral turpitude.
• Performance & Duty: Absenteeism, tardiness, insubordination, or failure to carry out assigned duties.
• Resource Abuse: Misuse of government property, resources, or official time.
• Workplace Conduct: Sexual misconduct, discrimination, harassment, or abuse of authority/position.

D.C. public employees, including civil service staff, police, and appointed officials, are governed by these rules. Specific procedural details may vary between the D.C. Office of Human Resources (DCHR) and respective agency policies.

Minor penalties are applied to less severe offenses or initial infractions, primarily intended to correct behavior without resulting in permanent job loss. They serve as a formal, documented warning for future reference.

Minor disciplinary penalties include:

• Written Reprimand: A formal, documented warning added to the employee's personnel file.
• Suspension under 10 Days: A temporary removal from duty without pay.
• Reduction in Leave: A penalty involving the loss of accrued annual or sick leave.

Even minor penalties can restrict employees from promotions for a specified period, temporarily impacting their career advancement.

Major discipline is reserved for serious misconduct, repeat offenses, or egregious acts, carrying severe and often long-term consequences for the employee’s employment status. These actions reflect a fundamental loss of confidence in the employee's suitability for public service.

Major disciplinary actions include:

Suspension over 10 Days: An extended period of unpaid leave for highly serious misconduct.

Demotion: A reduction in the employee's official position level or pay grade.

Termination: Complete removal from the D.C. government workforce for cause.

Termination for cause may disqualify the individual from future D.C. government employment opportunities, subject to provisions under 6B DCMR § 1607.

The procedural framework provides employees with multiple stages to challenge the allegations before any penalty is finalized. These stages ensure transparency and the right to a defense.

Key procedural stages include:

1. Investigation: The agency collects evidence and reviews allegations to establish grounds for action.
2. Notice of Proposed Action: A formal letter outlining the specific charges, supporting evidence, and the potential penalty.
3. Employee Response: The employee is granted at least 10 days to formally reply to the charges, orally or in writing.
4. Final Agency Decision: The designated official issues a final, written determination with the rationale and the specific measure imposed.

Specific time limits and non-punitive restrictions govern the agency’s ability to initiate and conclude disciplinary action. These rules ensure the prompt and fair resolution of misconduct allegations.

• Financial Penalties: D.C. regulations allow restitution or reimbursement to recover specific financial losses caused by the employee’s actions, but punitive fines are rare in administrative contexts.
• Time Limits (Limitations Periods): Disciplinary action must be initiated within defined timeframes (e.g., 3 years for standard misconduct, 5 years for financial misconduct, 10 years for sexual misconduct) or the action may be invalidated.

The primary venue for administrative review for most classified D.C. employees is the independent Office of Employee Appeals (OEA). This body is the critical first step for seeking redress.

The appeals process includes:

• Filing Deadline: Appeals must be filed with the OEA within a strict 30 calendar days of receiving the final agency decision.
• OEA's Review Scope: The OEA assesses whether the agency followed proper procedures, whether the charges were supported by evidence, and if the penalty was proportionate.
• Potential Remedies: Successful appeals can result in reinstatement, the award of back pay, or modification of the penalty.

Following the OEA process, further limited review is available through the D.C. courts, and professional legal consultation is strongly advised.

• Judicial Review: If the OEA decision is unfavorable, an employee may file a petition for review in the D.C. Superior Court. This review is narrowly focused on legal errors or fundamental due process violations.
• Importance of Counsel: Employees facing major charges should consult legal counsel early in the process. Legal representation significantly enhances the effectiveness of the initial response and the ability to contest the agency’s findings before the OEA.