Bagenstose v. Dc Office of Employee Appeals, No. 04-CV-780.

Docket NºNo. 04-CV-780.
Citation888 A.2d 1155
Case DateDecember 08, 2005
CourtCourt of Appeals of Columbia District
888 A.2d 1155
Charles M. BAGENSTOSE, Appellant,
v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICE OF EMPLOYEE APPEALS, Appellee.
District of Columbia Public Schools, Intervenor.
No. 04-CV-780.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Argued September 22, 2005.
Decided December 8, 2005.

Page 1156

Charles M. Bagenstose, pro se.

Mary L. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, with whom Robert J. Spagnoletti, Attorney General, and Edward E. Schwab, Deputy Attorney General, were on the brief for intervenor.

Before TERRY and REID, Associate Judges, and BELSON, Senior Judge.

BELSON, Senior Judge:


Appellant, Charles M. Bagenstose, appeals an order of the trial court which denied his petition for review of a decision of the Office of Employee Appeals Board upholding the initial decision of the Office of Employee Appeals ("OEA") that it lacked jurisdiction to review his reduction-in-force ("RIF") claim because he had retired rather than be terminated as a result of a RIF. Bagenstose contends that his retirement was involuntary due to duress

Page 1157

and misrepresentation. We are unpersuaded by his arguments and affirm.

Bagenstose was formerly a mathematics teacher with the District of Columbia public school system ("DCPS"). On June 19, 1996, Bagenstose received a Notice of Reduction-in-Force, which resulted from a District-wide financial crisis. The notice informed Bagenstose that, as part of the RIF, he would be terminated from his employment effective July 19, 1996. The notice also stated that Bagenstose could appeal any failure by the DCPS to follow certain procedures for the proposed RIF. In addition, the notice stated that Bagenstose could retire if he was eligible. It did not mention that if he opted for retirement, he would not be able to challenge the proposed RIF, but did give him the names of persons he could call if he wished to speak with a counselor. During the same period of time, according to Bagenstose, he also received a telephone call from the DCPS personnel office telling him that if he did not complete the relevant retirement application, he might not receive a pension in the greater amount for which he would be eligible if he retires by a specified date. Bagenstose noted an appeal of his proposed RIF with the OEA on July 19, 1996. Subsequently, Bagenstose also submitted a retirement application, and his retirement became effective on August 27, 1996. After an OEA hearing, the administrative judge ruled that Bagenstose had failed to show that his retirement was involuntary. Bagenstose appealed this decision to the OEA Board, which affirmed the initial order. He then challenged the Board's decision in the Superior Court, which denied his petition for review and his motion for reconsideration. This appeal followed.

Bagenstose argues that his retirement was involuntary on the grounds that: (1) the notice of his RIF did not affirmatively make it clear to him that he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • Bagenstose v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 06-1245 (JDB).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • August 14, 2007
    ...the proposed RIF and stated that plaintiff could retire if he was eligible. Id.; see also Bagenstose v. D.C. Office of Employee Appeals, 888 A.2d 1155, 1157 (D.C.2005). At the same time, the letter did not inform plaintiff that he would be unable to challenge the proposed discharge if he ch......
  • Dist. of Columbia Office of Human Rights v. Dist. of Columbia Dep't of Corr., Nos. 09–CV–457
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • April 5, 2012
    ...would review an [agency] decision if it were appealable directly to us.” 5 Bagenstose v. District of Columbia Office of Employee Appeals, 888 A.2d 1155, 1157 (D.C.2005); see Kennedy v. District of Columbia, 654 A.2d 847, 853 (D.C.1994) (“[O]ur primary task is not simply to review the Superi......
  • Jahr v. Dist. of D.C. Office of Employee Appeals, No. 09–CV–496.
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • May 26, 2011
    ...where the OEA's action was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” Bagenstose v. District of Columbia Office of Emp. Appeals, 888 A.2d 1155, 1157 (D.C.2005) (citations omitted). There is clear evidence on the record to support the OEA's decision. The record [19 A.3d 341] reveals......
  • Settlemire v. District of Columbia Oea, No. 03-CV-590.
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • May 11, 2006
    ...request initiated by an employee is presumed to be a voluntary act." Bagenstose v. District of Columbia Office of Employee Appeals, 888 A.2d 1155, 1157 (D.C. 2005). Before the OEA, Settlemire asserted that his retirement was not voluntary, and that he would have worked until age 62 rather t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • Bagenstose v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 06-1245 (JDB).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • August 14, 2007
    ...the proposed RIF and stated that plaintiff could retire if he was eligible. Id.; see also Bagenstose v. D.C. Office of Employee Appeals, 888 A.2d 1155, 1157 (D.C.2005). At the same time, the letter did not inform plaintiff that he would be unable to challenge the proposed discharge if he ch......
  • Dist. of Columbia Office of Human Rights v. Dist. of Columbia Dep't of Corr., Nos. 09–CV–457
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • April 5, 2012
    ...would review an [agency] decision if it were appealable directly to us.” 5 Bagenstose v. District of Columbia Office of Employee Appeals, 888 A.2d 1155, 1157 (D.C.2005); see Kennedy v. District of Columbia, 654 A.2d 847, 853 (D.C.1994) (“[O]ur primary task is not simply to review the Superi......
  • Jahr v. Dist. of D.C. Office of Employee Appeals, No. 09–CV–496.
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • May 26, 2011
    ...where the OEA's action was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” Bagenstose v. District of Columbia Office of Emp. Appeals, 888 A.2d 1155, 1157 (D.C.2005) (citations omitted). There is clear evidence on the record to support the OEA's decision. The record [19 A.3d 341] reveals......
  • Settlemire v. District of Columbia Oea, No. 03-CV-590.
    • United States
    • District of Columbia Court of Appeals of Columbia District
    • May 11, 2006
    ...request initiated by an employee is presumed to be a voluntary act." Bagenstose v. District of Columbia Office of Employee Appeals, 888 A.2d 1155, 1157 (D.C. 2005). Before the OEA, Settlemire asserted that his retirement was not voluntary, and that he would have worked until age 62 rather t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT