Is Your Federal Employee Appeal Worth Pursuing? The InformedFED Case Evaluation Explained
- InformedFED Chief
- 6 days ago
- 3 min read
Many public employees—at both the federal and state levels—often assume that every negative situation they face at work is automatically appealable and guaranteed to result in a favorable outcome. While it's true that nearly any employee can initiate a complaint or appeal and the agency is legally obligated to process it, this administrative requirement does not assure the employee of achieving their desired result.
This is where expert guidance and a rigorous case evaluation as part of an Initial Case Assessment (ICA) becomes essential. At InformedFED, we provide continuous, in-depth analysis to ensure your time, effort, and money are invested in a situation that is truly worth pursuing.
🏛️ The Crucial Need for Continuous Case Evaluation
Employees often file complaints based on common workplace situations such as:
Leave or Telework Denials
Reasonable Accommodation Denials
Negative Performance Ratings
Discipline (Suspension, Removal, etc.)
Work Assignments or Schedules
Investigations or Customer Complaints
Reassignment
Harassment
Discrimination
Allegations of senior level misconduct
While these issues may be genuinely adverse or objectionable to the employee, not all of them, when appealed, will result in a favorable outcome. This is the simple reality.
As academically credentialed senior-level practitioners in federal employee labor & employee relations, EEO (Equal Employment Opportunity), and MSPB (Merit Systems Protection Board) matters, we dedicate significant time to clarifying our clients' claims, issues, and circumstances. This ongoing case evaluation is vital for assessing situations concerning appeals to forums such as the MSPB, EEOC, FLRA, OSC, DOL, and various arbitration processes.
🧐 The InformedFED Case Evaluation Three-Prong Test
Our consultants apply a dynamic, continuing three-prong test during the InformedFED Case Evaluation—starting with our first discussion and throughout the entire appeal or complaint progression—to reasonably ensure client objectives and expectations can be met. This ongoing assessment involves the application of three key contexts, in order:
1. Is the Claim Actionable?
In basic terms, Actionable means determining if the employee's claims are “legitimate” enough upon presentation to legally trigger an appeal or complaint, regardless of whether they can be definitively proven yet.
Key Questions Addressed:
Are the claims supported by preliminary facts that materially trigger an appeal under statutory or regulatory authorities?
Is the claim Cognizable (recognized) in the selected forum (e.g., MSPB, EEOC, OSC)?
Does the employee have the regulatory or statutory appeal rights to the selected forum?
Does the selected forum have material jurisdiction over the claimed issue?
If the claims were proven, does the selected forum actually have the ability to issue a ruling that benefits the employee?
2. Is the Claim Viable?
Viable means assessing whether the employee's claims can be supported through sufficiently developed information, making it sensible to proceed with the anticipation of either a pre-hearing settlement or a rational possibility of prevailing at a hearing.
Key Questions Addressed:
Can the claims be sufficiently developed for use in the specific forum?
Can the necessary facts be proven through the development and presentation of evidence that will withstand the evidentiary process and judicial scrutiny in the selected forum?
3. Is the Claim Sustainable?
Sustainable means determining if the claims can be maintained through successful evidence development supporting the complaint or appeal and pre-hearing settlement efforts, or otherwise successfully proven at the hearing stage.
Key Questions Addressed:
Are the claims ultimately Provable based on incontestable facts and evidence established through case development?
If proven, is the adjudicating authority empowered to provide sufficient remedy to meet the client's objectives?
Can the employee's claims likely withstand an agency motion for summary judgment or dismissal?
How InformedFED Services Help You
The expertise offered by InformedFED is directly reflected in this rigorous case evaluation process. We don't just process paperwork; we apply senior-level, seasoned knowledge of federal sector labor and employee relations to your unique situational facts and circumstances.
Saves You Money and Time: If our dynamic evaluation determines a case is no longer actionable, viable, or sustainable due to developing information, we advise you immediately. This is a key distinction of our services: we recommend discontinuing administrative litigation efforts to save you money on a lost cause.
Realistic Expectations: Our process manages your expectations from day one, giving you an honest assessment of what you can realistically achieve.
Strategic Focus: By clarifying the true legal and evidentiary issues, we help focus your appeal efforts, ensuring resources are directed toward the most crucial, winnable aspects of your case.
Expert Navigation: We provide the expertise needed to navigate the complex jurisdictional and procedural rules of forums like the MSPB, EEOC, and FLRA—expertise often lacking among non-specialized advocates.
Don't proceed with a federal employee appeal based on assumption. Let InformedFED apply our expert three-prong test to give you the clear, honest, and strategic guidance you need. See a list of some services we provide by clicking here.
