Outcome
The MSPB affirmed the arbitrator's decision sustaining the appellant's 30-day suspension for failing to follow instructions, finding she breached a last chance settlement agreement and failed to establish her failure-to-accommodate disability discrimination claim.
What This Ruling Means
**What Happened:**
Laima Ciguzis, a Department of Labor employee, was suspended for 30 days after she failed to keep her workspace clean as required by a previous settlement agreement. This "last-chance agreement" was likely put in place after earlier workplace issues. Ciguzis challenged the suspension, claiming the department failed to accommodate her disability and discriminated against her because of it.
**What the Court Decided:**
The Merit Systems Protection Board sided with the Department of Labor. The court upheld the 30-day suspension, agreeing that Ciguzis had violated the terms of her last-chance settlement agreement by not maintaining a clean workspace as instructed. The board affirmed an earlier arbitrator's decision supporting the employer's disciplinary action.
**Why This Matters for Workers:**
This case shows that last-chance agreements are taken very seriously by courts and employers. Even when workers have disabilities, they must still follow the specific terms of settlement agreements they've signed. Workers should understand that violating a last-chance agreement can result in significant discipline, even if they believe their disability contributed to the violation. If you have a disability, it's crucial to discuss needed accommodations before signing any settlement agreements.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.