RE: Ney v. Department of Commerce (MSPB)

["Mark S. Zaid" <mark@markzaid.com>]

Peter, we'll take and look, talk amongst ourselves and then get back to you
very shortly. Perhaps early next week at the latest? Is that ok?

Mark

 
____________________________________________________________________________
__
This electronic mail (e-mail) transmission is meant solely for the person(s)
to whom it is addressed.  It contains confidential information that may also
be legally privileged.  Any copying, dissemination or distribution of the
contents of this e-mail by anyone other than the addressee or his or her
agent for such purposes is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this
e-mail in error, please notify me immediately by telephone, facsimile or
e-mail and purge the original and all copies thereof.  Thank you.

Mark S. Zaid, Esq.
Mark S. Zaid, P.C.
1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 200
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 454-2809 direct
(202) 330-5610 fax
www.MarkZaid.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Ney [mailto:pete@ney.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 5:18 PM
To: Mark S. Zaid
Cc: 'Anne Ney'; 'Eric S. Montalvo'; 'Haytham Faraj'; 'Debra D'Agostino'
Subject: Re: Ney v. Department of Commerce (MSPB)

Mark,

I have attached a few of the basic documents.  The AJ originally dismissed
the marital status case but it was remanded on appeal and he was ordered to
review it for USERRA and VEOA violations.  We have not been able to find a
lawyer in this area that is confident in MSPB cases, and who understands
USERRA/VEOA violations, prohibited personnel practices and dealing with a
federal agency.  The Department of Labor has assigned an investigator to
pursue the VEOA complaint Anne made with them, but they will not participate
in the MSPB appeal.

We are not in a position to put down a huge retainer and run up huge legal
costs.  The MSPB will award attorney's fees if we prevail and we can add a
percentage of any award to make the case attractive to a willing and
qualified lawyer.  Our current settlement offer is - reinstatement to
present with all back pay, etc. and $250,000.  

I hope that the unique aspects of this case; probationary employee, military
reserve CWO4 with 30 years of service, USERRA, female on female
discrimination, and blatant misuse of the public trust will interest a
lawyer with the experience to bring it to a quick resolution.  We still hold
out hope that they will want to avoid a messy public hearing that puts the
credibility of a bunch of scientists under the scrutiny of the MSPB/OPM/DOL
and the OSC.  If any of your colleagues are interested, I would be happy to
talk to them. 

Thanks for your time,

Pete