MSPB Decision
On May 4, 2020, Stephen Simon, attorney representing Sherry Chen, issued the following statement:
Last month marked the 2-year anniversary of Judge Schroeder’s 135-page decision (4/23/18) in Sherry Chen’s Merit Systems Protection Board case. The judge ruled the Department of Commerce did not have cause to fire Sherry and blasted the agency for its scandalous conduct surrounding Sherry’s arrest in 2014 and termination in 2016. The agency regrettably filed an appeal that has languished before the MSPB Board in DC, which has lacked a quorum since January 2017. A decision may not come until 2021 or later. We hope the agency will stop the delay tactics and just drop the appeal altogether. |
The 135-page MSPB Decision was released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Read it here or download below:
| ||
Highlights of MSPB Decision
|
"After reviewing the evidence and testimony in this matter, I believe Ms. Chen's assertion [that she is the 'victim of a gross injustice'] is correct." page 105
"... the gross injustice was caused not by discrimination or retaliation, but by the agency's mishandling of the situation on a number of different levels as discussed throughout this decision." page 105 "In short, Ms. Furgione and Admiral Devany seemed more concerned about being right than doing the right thing. Based on the unyielding nature of their testimony, I would not have been surprised if they rejected that 2 + 2 = 4." page 102 "It is not my place nor is it necessary for me to decide whether Ms. Furgione or Admiral Devany had a blinding desire to save face for the agency in light of the press coverage and the length of time that had passed since Ms. [Deborah] Lee first submitted her concerns to the security office, whether they felt Ms. Chen returning to the agency would embarrass or not reflect well on the agency's initial actions, whether their thought process was tainted by the dismissed criminal charges, or whether they simply did not have the competence or experience to impartially perform their respective roles as proposing and deciding officials in this matter." page 103 "Despite the obvious relevance to the events surrounding Ms. Chen's charged conduct, the agents [including Andrew Lieberman] decided not to prepare an MOI and the hand-written notes were not part of the materials the agency provided to Ms. Furgione or Admiral Devany." page 65 "MATERIALS EXCLUDED FROM AGENCY FILES. The agents [including Andrew Lieberman] unilaterally decided which interviews they would reduce to writing. They based their decision on whether the information gleaned from the interview was, according to them, material to the case. If the agents believed the information was material, the agents would transcribe the hand-written notes from an interview into a typed Memorandum of Investigation (MOI) and it would become part of the agency file; if they did not, the notes or information did not make it to the file... This is both puzzling and unfortunate." page 28-29 "NWS only turned the documents over to Ms. Chen after her counsel discovered their existence by chance. Admiral Devany could not offer any explanation as to why the agency did not provide him with any of these documents." page 29 |
Accountable officials at the U.S. Department of Commerce
|
Vice Admiral Michael Devany, Deciding Official
Former Deputy Under Secretary for Operations for NOAA Sixth level supervior to Sherry Chen
|
|
|
Laura Furgione, Proposing Official
Former Deputy Director of National Weather Service Fourth level supervisor to Sherry Chen
|
|
Deborah Lee, Informant
Former Director of the Watershed Management Division for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
|
|
Andrew Lieberman, Investigator
Special Agent, Investigations and Threat Management Service (ITMS), Office of Security, Department of Commerce |
