DECISION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
This case is before the Board of Directors (“Board”) pursuant to a petition for review filed by Melanie Ingram (“Ingram”), against the Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms (“SSA”). Ingram seeks review of the Hearing Officer’s October 10, 2014 Order, which granted the SSA’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Hearing Officer found that Ingram’s request for counseling was untimely and that Ingram’s administrative complaint was also untimely.
Upon due consideration of the Hearing Officer’s Order, the parties’ briefs and filings, and the record in these proceedings, the Board affirms the Hearing Officer’s decision to dismiss the complaint because the request for counseling was untimely.
I. Background
Employment History
Ingram began working for the SSA on March 22, 1999. In 2013, she was working as an administrative assistant for the SSA. On February 14, 2013, the SSA issued to all employees a memorandum captioned “SSA Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment (VSIP) Program.” The memorandum discussed financial constraints imposed upon the SSA’s budget, as a result of the March 1, 2013 sequester. The memorandum warned employees of the potential for furlough and/or a Reduction-In-Force (“reduction-in-force” or “RIF”). The memorandum also offered employees the opportunity to voluntarily terminate their employment as part of the VSIP Program, to help improve the SSA’s budget shortfall.
Termination
On May 10, 2013, Ingram alleges that she was working near the SSA Recording Studio Conference Room. She claims that she overheard supervisor D.M., supervisor D.B. and H.R. Administrator E.M., “plotting to remove a female employee through one of several contrived methods, of which a Reduction-in-Force was one of several possibilities.” She also asserts that supervisors D.M. and D.B. stated that they wanted the employee out of the office as soon as possible because they disliked her and considered her a “drag” on the office. Ingram maintains that they discussed placing the employee on a temporary reassignment, removal, or suspension, as well as other possibilities. According to Ingram, the tone of these discussions was “secretive, sinister, and underhanded.” Ingram claims she questioned D.M. about the meeting. She maintains that D.M. allegedly responded, “Don’t worry about it you will find out what is going on soon.”
