Lexplug logoLexplug

Otherson v. Department of Justice, INS

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
711 F.2d 267, 228 U.S.App.D.C. 481 (1983)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The doctrine of issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) may be applied in a Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) hearing to prevent a federal employee from relitigating facts that were established by the employee's prior criminal conviction, provided the standard elements for preclusion are met.


Facts:

  • Jeffrey Otherson was a border patrol agent for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).
  • On July 3 and 4, 1979, Otherson and a co-worker engaged in a prearranged scheme to physically abuse and mistreat aliens while on duty.
  • The misconduct involved several on-duty physical assaults against aliens.
  • On February 28, 1980, the INS notified Otherson of its proposal to remove him from his job.
  • On June 2, 1980, the INS officially removed Otherson from his position, citing the same acts of misconduct for which he had been criminally convicted.

Procedural Posture:

  • The government filed criminal charges against Jeffrey Otherson in federal district court.
  • The first trial ended in a hung jury, and the judge declared a mistrial.
  • The government filed a superseding information with reduced misdemeanor charges, and the parties agreed to a trial on a stipulated record.
  • The district court judge found Otherson guilty on both misdemeanor counts.
  • Otherson appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the conviction.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court denied Otherson's petition for a writ of certiorari.
  • Otherson separately appealed his removal by the INS to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).
  • An MSPB presiding official affirmed the removal, applying issue preclusion based on the criminal conviction.
  • The full MSPB denied Otherson's petition for review, making the presiding official's decision the final agency action.
  • Otherson then filed a petition for review of the MSPB's final decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the doctrine of issue preclusion prevent a federal employee from relitigating, in a Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) adverse action hearing, facts that were established by the employee's prior criminal conviction?


Opinions:

Majority - Senior Circuit Judge McGowan

Yes, the doctrine of issue preclusion can prevent an employee from relitigating facts in an MSPB hearing that were established in a prior criminal conviction. The MSPB is a quasi-judicial body, and the same policy reasons that support issue preclusion in courts—such as judicial economy and finality—are equally applicable to its adjudicatory proceedings. An employee's statutory right to a hearing before the MSPB guarantees one full and fair opportunity to be heard, not multiple opportunities to litigate the same factual issues. The court found that the standard requirements for issue preclusion were satisfied in this case. The facts of Otherson's misconduct were 'actually litigated' because he contested the charges through cross-examination and forced the judge to determine his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than merely stipulating to the truth of the facts. The issues were 'necessarily determined' because the trial judge had to find the facts of the assaults to be true in order to convict him. Finally, applying preclusion was not unfair, as Otherson had a significant incentive to defend himself in the criminal trial, evidenced by his appeal to the Supreme Court, and the higher burden of proof in the criminal case provides an extra margin of reliability for the factual findings.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies the application of the judicial doctrine of collateral estoppel to federal administrative proceedings, specifically within the Merit Systems Protection Board. It establishes that a government agency can rely on an employee's work-related criminal conviction as conclusive proof of the underlying misconduct in a subsequent termination hearing. This precedent streamlines adverse action cases for agencies by preventing employees from getting a 'second bite at the apple' to challenge facts already proven against them in a criminal court under a higher burden of proof, thereby promoting efficiency and consistency between judicial and administrative forums.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Otherson v. Department of Justice, INS (1983) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Otherson v. Department of Justice, INS