Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
On the issue of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s denial of the Appellant¡¯s request for confidentiality, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or fact in denying her request as if confidentiality were attached to the identity of each staff member, there would be no transparency. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not admit into evidence additional documents as they were of no assistance to it and there were no exceptional circumstances. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant merely gave passing reference to the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute¡¯s grounds of appeal and offered no legal authority to support her claims. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the characterization of the issue by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and, accordingly, held that it would not consider on appeal the Appellant¡¯s complaints against the Management Evaluation Unit or the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA Office of Audit and Investigations Services, which were not raised before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in law or fact when it held that the Appellant did not have a reasonable or legitimate expectation of renewal of her contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that ST/AI/200/5 did not apply to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA¡¯s decision not to renew the Appellant¡¯s appointment as Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA had not accepted that administrative instruction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly held that there was no provision for an improvement plan under Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵFPA¡¯s Separation Policy. On the Appellant¡¯s argument that different policies on performance and separation created a disparity of treatment among Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ staff, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT opined that principles of equality were not affected by reasonable differences in agencies¡¯ policies. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to the Appellant¡¯s challenge to the Rebuttal Panel and that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly relied on the Rebuttal¡¯s Panel¡¯s report to support the Administration¡¯s determination that the Appellants performance was poor or substandard. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that none of the Appellant¡¯s other claims had merit or would affect the outcome of the appeal and therefore did not address them. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment for reasons of poor performance. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT denied the application.
Legal Principle(s)
An appellant must identify the alleged defects in a Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment and state the grounds relied upon in asserting that the judgment is defective; it is not sufficient for an appellant to state that he or she disagrees with the outcome of the case or repeat the arguments submitted before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT.