Recent Work/Testimonials
May 2008 - After a full day of hearing, and 3 months of negotiations, the Attig Law Firm, PLLC, secured a very favorable settlement agreement from a Federal Government Agency in a case before the MSPB. For confidentiality purposes, the name of the Agency will not be disclosed. In this case, our client claimed she was coerced into accepting early retirement under a VERA/VSIP program while suffering from a mental incapacity that rendered her unable to make a well-informed decision to retire. The Agency claimed that the client was a poor performer who accepted the VERA/VSIP to avoid being fired for poor performance. After a full day of hearing before an MSPB Judge, the AGency agreed to settle the case. In general term, the Agency agreed to reinstate the employee, "unwind" the VERA/VSIP, paid a lump sum in damages to the Appellant, and allowed the employee to continue in a new position with the Agency outside her old chain of command without any interruption of her service computation date. This settlement took nearly 3 months to negotiate, due to the difficulty in unwinding a retirement action such as a VERA/VSIP, and is not be possible in every situation.
April 2008 -After mediation through the MSPB's Mediation Assistance Program, the Attig Law Firm, PLLC, negotiated a settlement agreement in a client's appeal of his placement on Indefinite Enforced Leave. After seeking medical treatment, our client was unable to return to his job due to licensure requirements. Pending restoration of his license, the Agency placed the employee on Indefinite Enforced Leave. The client claimed that the Agency was required to offer him limited/light duty instead of placing him on Indefinite Enforced Leave. The Agency claimed that there was no requirement to offer lower graded employees "busy work". After mediation, the Parties agreed to settle the case. In general terms, the Agency agreed to offer the employee a reasonable accommodation for his disability, canceled the indefinite enforced leave action, restored the employee to the active rolls, and paid a portion of the client's attorney fees. This type of remedy may not be possible in every case; what is possible in your case depends on the facts of and law applicable to your situation
February 2008 - After full discovery and prior to a hearing, the Attig Law Firm, PLLC, secured a very favorable settlement agreement from a Federal Government Agency in a case before the EEOC. For confidentiality purposes, the name of the Agency will not be disclosed. In the case, our client claimed discrimination based on a disability (physical condition related to mental health) when the Agency denied the client's request to transfer, denied the client's request for reasonable accommodation for over 18 months, placed the client on a PIP, and increased monitoring of our client due to her medical condition. Most telling of the Agency's actions was that our client a disabled veteran, was given an increased impairment rating from the VA due to the harassment that occurred in the workplace. The increase was from 10% to 50%, a staggeringly high increase! The Attig Law Firm negotiated a settlement that included substantial compensation for non-pecuniary compensatory damages, payment of attorney fees and costs. These results may not be possible in every case; the type of relief that is possible in any other case depends solely on the facts and law applicable in that case.
December 2007 - After a full day of hearing before the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the Attig Law Firm, secured a favorable settlement on behalf of its client. The client was an employee with the Department of Defense, and had been fired earlier in 2007. In firing her, the Agency charged her with AWOL, failure to follow leave procedures, and failure to follow instructions. Early in the proceedings, the Administrative Judge merged the charges into one charge of "Failure to follow leave procedures resulting in AWOL". Our client contended that the Agency's removal action was wrong because the Agency improperly denied her leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and because the Agency's action was discriminatory (we are not disclosing the legal basis for the alleged discrimination to protect our client's privacy). After the Agency presented its case-in-chief, it was undeniably clear that the Agency could not sustain its burden of proof, and the case was settled within 3 business hours. Along with monetary compensation for the injuries the Agency caused her, our client was restored to the Agency rolls, the removal action was cancelled and expunged from her record, and the Agency agreed to assist her in locating a new job through the Agency's Military Spouse Preference Program. These results may not be possible in every case; the type of relief that is possible in any other case depends solely on the facts and law applicable in that case.
December 2007 - After an oral reply, the Attig Law Firm was able to persuade an Agency to mitigate our client's proposed removal to a 30 day suspension. For a variety of reasons, we will not disclose the Agency or the specific nature of the charges. The Appellant conceded that she had engaged in most of the conduct that the Agency alleged was misconduct. However, the client's contrition, her significant contributions to civil service over the past 2 decades, and a lot of support from her colleagues, friends and neighbors, persuaded the Deciding Official that our client still had quite a bit to contribute to Federal service, and chose not to remove her.
November 2007 - Without the need for a hearing, the Attig Law Firm was able to convince OPM to rescind its earlier decision reducing our client's retirement annuity. Our client was a veteran of the United States Armed Forces and the non-uniformed federal service (for a variety of reasons, we are not disclosing his Agency). Earlier this year, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) reduced our client’s retirement annuity when he reached the age of 62, applying what Federal employees know as the "Catch 62" provisions. Because the client was never counseled on the requirements for and consequences of electing the deposit, we were able to persuade OPM to reverse its earlier decision and allow our client to make his military deposit. The favorable decision will increase our client’s retirement annuity approximately $5,000 per year for the rest of his life.
October 2007 - Without the need for a hearing, the Attig Law Firm was able to convince OPM to rescind its earlier decision reducing our client's retirement annuity. Our client was a 3-decade veteran of the United States Armed Forces and the non-uniformed federal service (for a variety of reasons, we are not disclosing his Agency). Earlier this year, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) reduced our client’s retirement annuity when he reached the age of 62, applying what Federal employees know as the "Catch 62" provisions. The Firm's aggressive use of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and other pre-discovery tools were instrumental in persuading OPM to rescind its decision without the need for a hearing. The favorable decision will increase our client’s retirement annuity approximately $10,000 per year for the rest of his life.
April 2007 - After an oral reply by Chris Attig, Attorney, a disciplinary suspension for a client (a 20-year Federal employee in California) was mitigated to a written reprimand. Because the matter was a suspension less than 14 days, the case was not appealable to the MSPB. Mr. Attig said, "The Deciding Official in this case had the open-mindedness and compassion to recognize that this particular employee, with over 20 years of exemplary federal service, had just hit a rough patch in her personal life.
"For at least 4 years off and on I conducted several broad searches for a knowledgeable attorney. I finally gave up and continued to handle my claims pro-se. I decided to contact the [Attig Law Firm]...after I spoke with Chris about my Federal EEO and MSPB claims I found myself so impressed with his high level of knowledge in federal employment law, and his straightforward and optimistic attitude, that long before we made it through the telephone consultation I was ready to hire him. I feel like a winner already."
Regina M., Federal Employee.
"Chris did one of the very best cross exams on [SMITH] that I have ever seen. He impeached her on several key points. His cross was very quick, concise and effective...It was clear that he had a very well thought out, calculated plan for crossing [SMITH] and he executed this plan with precision. Although I have seen him do good work in other cases, this was his finest performance by far..."
Christina S., Attorney.
"Chris - I am so pleased with this outcome and I know that your legal skills and perseverance were key to this result. I am especially appreciative of your willingness to listen to my managers and staff and to take their interests and goals into account in crafting your strategy. I won't go so far as to say I look forward to having another such case to settle! But if I do, I will feel very comfortable if I am fortunate enough to have you representing us."
Janis L., Senior Executive.
"A significant accomplishment and amazing feat in light of the external and internal brow beating you had to endure! Thanks so much for what is an excellent settlement for all."
Maryann L., Senior Management.
Chris "...exhibit[s] a firmness of conviction while maintaining the intellectual flexibility of one more advanced in experience...[a]bove all things, Chris places a premium on personal integrity, intellectual honesty and professionalism."
William Rosch, Attorney.
"You are, by far, the best, most thorough and considerate GLS attorney I've ever worked with...I enjoyed working with you and learned a lot because you included me in every aspect of the case. Thank you."
Karen C., Human Resources Specialist.
