Investigations of Federal Employees

The Stressful Experience of Being Investigated as a Federal Employee

No employee wants to be under scrutiny, but when it comes to federal employees, the investigation is even more intense. False accusations and rumors can spread like wildfire, putting an individual in the spotlight of an investigation. The process can be overwhelming and stressful for anyone involved.

Different Approaches to Investigating Federal Employees

The federal sector has various approaches when investigating a federal employee. Each department has its own policies and procedures that may differ from others. Disciplinary actions are also handled differently by each supervisor; some prefer verbal warnings while others document everything in an employee’s file.

Unfortunately, judgment calls made by supervisors may not always feel fair since situations vary based on relationships with coworkers or friendships around the office. Even after leaving one job for another, the process of investigation sticks with an employee. Therefore, it is best practice to contact an attorney who specializes in this area so that everything moves smoothly and fairly.

Criminal Investigations of Federal Employees

In many cases, investigations take place before the subject knows they are under scrutiny. However, if a federal employee is being investigated for criminal issues, their Miranda warning should be read aloud fully before questioning begins. They have the right to remain silent until their attorney arrives because anything said after receiving this warning could potentially harm them during the investigation.

Investigating Misconduct by Federal Employees

Federal employees who are under administrative conduct investigations receive Garrity and Kalkines warnings instead of Miranda warnings typically used during criminal investigations. A Kalkines warning advises employees that any information divulged during interviews will go unused if there are criminal charges against them later on.

However, unlike a Miranda warning which allows individuals to stay silent during questioning or interviews without penalty; a Kalkines warning removes this right from those being interviewed or questioned.
On the other hand,a straight Garrity warning works similarly to a Miranda Warning where investigators may question people internally but the person has the right to remain silent.

Deciphering Disciplinary Action

Disciplinary processes begin after a federal employee is accused of misconduct. Once an investigation concludes, the employee will likely receive written notice. One copy goes to the employee and another to their attorney for filing purposes and case closure, regardless if it lists disciplinary action or merely a resolution.

Proposed disciplinary or disciplinary actions are crucial because employees only have a specific number of days to respond in writing or orally. The preparation for either response should be through an attorney who can also access any evidence against their client during investigations.

After responding in person or by writing, the employee receives feedback from a panel that reviews these reports. A written decision follows which may keep the punishment as proposed, rescind it entirely, or reduce it significantly.

Benefits of Hiring an Attorney

Federal employees benefit greatly from hiring attorneys since they can assist with accusations such as excessive absences, mishandling money, anger issues, insubordination and conduct unbecoming of a federal employee.

Table 1: Different Approaches when Investigating Federal Employees

Table 2: Investigating Misconduct by Federal Employees

Table 3 : Deciphering Disciplinary Action of Federal Employee Investigations