MSPB Decision Document
The MSPB Decision document was released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). You may read it here or download by clicking below:
| chen_v_dept_of_commerce-ch-0752-17-0028-i-1-_initial_decision.pdf |
Some of the Hightlights 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 the 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
"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 the 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
Deputy Under Secretary for Operations for NOAA Sixth level supervior Terminated Sherry Chen's employment in March 2016 Retired in July 2016 |
|
Laura Furgione, Proposing Official
Former Deputy Director of National Weather Service Fourth level supervisor Proposed twice to terminate Sherry Chen's employment Current Chief, Office of Strategic Planning, Innovation & Collaboration, Census Bureau Member, Board of Directors, Senior Executives Association |
|
Deborah Lee, Informant
Formerly Director of the Watershed Management Division for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Promoted to Director of Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, NOAA, on December 1, 2014, less than 2 months after Sherry Chen was arrested |
|
Andrew Lieberman, Investigator
Special Agent, Office of Security, Department of Commerce |
MSPB Judge Agrees That Sherry Chen Is The “Victim Of A Gross Injustice”
中文翻译: APAPA俄亥俄
April 24, 2018
Three and a half years after her wrongful arrest in October 2014 and two years after her termination in March 2016, Sherry Chen finally has received justice. In a detailed, 130+ page decision, Chief Administrative Judge Michele Szary Schroeder of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) ruled that the Department of Commerce (DOC) did not have cause to fire Sherry and therefore ordered the agency to (1) reinstate her employment at the National Weather Service and (2) pay her back pay plus benefits. We certainly hope that the agency accepts this well-reasoned decision and immediately complies with it, permitting Sherry to return to work that she loves.
In her decision, the judge agrees that Sherry is the “victim of a gross injustice.”
The judge completely rejected the DOC’s many allegations against Sherry that arose from its scurrilous claim that she purportedly attempted to obtain secret information from a restricted government database for an official in China.
Simply put, the judge exposed the scandalous conduct by the DOC, in how it investigated Sherry both before her arrest in 2014 and her subsequent termination in 2016. For example, the judge deemed it “inconceivable” that the DOC’s criminal investigators were selective and biased in producing their investigative reports. The judge also found it “troubling” that before firing Sherry DOC officials utterly failed to include in the DOC file a dozen sworn declarations from Sherry’s co-workers that were “clearly relevant” to the termination decision.
The judge also excoriated DOC officials for “digging their heels in when it came time to support the decision they had made.” In short, they seemed to be “more concerned about being right than doing the right thing.”
The judge reduced the termination to a 15-day suspension (the “maximum reasonable penalty”). While disappointing that the judge reached this particular conclusion based on a comment in an email unrelated to the sensational allegations, her decision is still overwhelming in its indictment of the DOC.
We hope this decision sends a strong message to the federal government: stop targeting innocent Chinese Americans. It is wrong, contrary to our country’s core values, and leads to the gross injustice that Sherry has endured.
The DOC has suffered too, as Sherry’s invaluable work has been missed for almost four years. She looks forward to once again serving her country and, finally, getting back to work.
This is an important milestone in the Sherry’s quest to receive justice, and shows the strength of our united community. However, this is only the first step of the long journey to recover fairness and justice for her, for the community, and for the nation’s institutions.
April 24, 2018
Three and a half years after her wrongful arrest in October 2014 and two years after her termination in March 2016, Sherry Chen finally has received justice. In a detailed, 130+ page decision, Chief Administrative Judge Michele Szary Schroeder of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) ruled that the Department of Commerce (DOC) did not have cause to fire Sherry and therefore ordered the agency to (1) reinstate her employment at the National Weather Service and (2) pay her back pay plus benefits. We certainly hope that the agency accepts this well-reasoned decision and immediately complies with it, permitting Sherry to return to work that she loves.
In her decision, the judge agrees that Sherry is the “victim of a gross injustice.”
The judge completely rejected the DOC’s many allegations against Sherry that arose from its scurrilous claim that she purportedly attempted to obtain secret information from a restricted government database for an official in China.
Simply put, the judge exposed the scandalous conduct by the DOC, in how it investigated Sherry both before her arrest in 2014 and her subsequent termination in 2016. For example, the judge deemed it “inconceivable” that the DOC’s criminal investigators were selective and biased in producing their investigative reports. The judge also found it “troubling” that before firing Sherry DOC officials utterly failed to include in the DOC file a dozen sworn declarations from Sherry’s co-workers that were “clearly relevant” to the termination decision.
The judge also excoriated DOC officials for “digging their heels in when it came time to support the decision they had made.” In short, they seemed to be “more concerned about being right than doing the right thing.”
The judge reduced the termination to a 15-day suspension (the “maximum reasonable penalty”). While disappointing that the judge reached this particular conclusion based on a comment in an email unrelated to the sensational allegations, her decision is still overwhelming in its indictment of the DOC.
We hope this decision sends a strong message to the federal government: stop targeting innocent Chinese Americans. It is wrong, contrary to our country’s core values, and leads to the gross injustice that Sherry has endured.
The DOC has suffered too, as Sherry’s invaluable work has been missed for almost four years. She looks forward to once again serving her country and, finally, getting back to work.
This is an important milestone in the Sherry’s quest to receive justice, and shows the strength of our united community. However, this is only the first step of the long journey to recover fairness and justice for her, for the community, and for the nation’s institutions.
陈霞芬听证会法官结论：商务部严重不公，责令恢复她的工作、补发工资福利
