National Park Service officials, who fired the superintendent of Sitka National Historical Park in 2010 because she refused a transfer, have been ordered to reinstate her with back pay.
The ruling, handed down by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board last week, was welcomed by the superintendent, Mary Miller.
“I am so grateful to my family, friends, colleagues and members of the community who have supported me throughout this arduous process. This decision has restored my faith in the system and I’m looking forward to getting back to work to continue building agency relations with the community,” Ms. Miller said in a prepared statement.
The 8-page ruling revolved around the Park Service's decision in 2010 to shift Superintendent Miller from the historical park in Sitka, Alaska, to a new position as Alaska Native Affairs Liaison in Anchorage, 500 miles away.
But the superintendent, who had been at the historical park for three years, said such a transfer would prove a hardship to her, that she was not qualified for the role, and that the impending removal of her from Sitka National Historical Park was '“tainted by discrimination”' based on her race, sex, and physical disability."
In response, the Park Service fired her in August 2010, found a person to serve as the liaison and another to take over the superintendency at Sitka National Historical Park.
In gathering testimony on Ms. Miller's appeal of that decision, the Merit Board heard from the Park Service how it "had a high regard for the appellant’s performance as the superintendent in Sitka. Indeed, agency witnesses testified that the agency relied upon the appellant’s strengths and accomplishments as a Superintendent as the basis for directing her reassignment to the Liaison position in Anchorage," the board noted.
Furthermore, it added in its ruling, "we find that it did not promote the efficiency of the service to direct the appellant to take the position in Anchorage against her will and to remove her from employment altogether when she declined the position. As a result of the agency’s actions, it lost an apparently valued and successful employee, and created two vacancies that the agency had to fill after her removal."
The board did not examine whether the reassignment "was tainted by discrimination," as Ms. Miller alleged, noting that she did not prove that claim during an initial hearing before an administrative judge.
The Park Service has until April 21 to reinstate Ms. Miller as superintendent of the historical park.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
To ecbuck and his 'judicial over reach' comment: I agree with Lee Dalton, your 'instant expertise' to make legal pronouncements is truly amazing considering you have absolutely no knowledge of the facts or law regarding this case. Further, while you like to cite to the rule of 'at will' employment, you fail to mention that it is patently illegal to fire someone both under Alaska state law, and United States law for impermissible reasons like racial animus. 'At will' does not mean you are authorized to "get rid of" people because you don't like Black people, Jews, Native Americans, or any other minority for that matter [and note, if you knew anything about Ms. Miller's case or read the MSPB decision, you would know she was fully successful in her work at the Park ... there was never any evidence that the Park Service 'didn't like the job' she was doing ... that is why the MSPB unanimously reversed their illogical decision to dismiss her from her post]. The law of the United States is: if you fire someone for an impermissible reason, that person has the right to challenge the basis of the dismissal in a court of law ... if this bothers you as "Third Party Interference" with the Employer/Employee relationship, perhaps you should move someplace like Nazi Germany where you can just 'get rid of' anybody for any reason ... with special dispensation to get rid of somebody if you don't like their race or national origin. However, for your sake, I would advise against moving from the United States ... where else could you enjoy such freedom to shoot your mouth off about topics you know nothing about?
Judge
Perhaps you missed this statement in the article:
Her "reinstatement" had nothing to do with being part of a protected class.
I'm curious - now that you've had a chance to actually read up on this situation, do you still think it is 'judicial overreach' to do the specific job that the board was created to do?
I believe that managers should do what they deem best and if their superiors (not some quasi-judicial board) don't agree, then those managers should be replaced. You hire a person to do a job. If you like what they are doing, you reward them. If you don't, you replace them. You don't second quess every move they make.
ec, you're fired!
Lee - too bad you aren't my superior.
Yup. But how long would it take for you to start appealing or screaming in frustrated anger? By your apparent standard, anyone fired from a job whether justly or unjustly should simply accept it and go cheerfully smiling into another day. Would you -- or could you?
I would and I have. And you know what, despite being eligible for unemployment benefits - I didn't take them. Nor did I sue anyone.