Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES—D.D.C.: VA supervisor, fired after providing false information to OIG, loses removal challenge, (Jul 31, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

He was terminated for “conduct unbecoming a federal supervisor” after the VA determined he falsely stated during an OIG interview that he had disclosed his wife’s undocumented immigration status to three supervisors.

A former Senior Executive Service (SES) supervisor at the VA failed to successfully challenge the agency’s 2024 revised removal action terminating his employment due to false statements he made during an OIG investigation that had revealed he had made misrepresentations about the immigration status of his wife. Following the court’s prior ruling allowing the agency to revise its 2020 ruling to fix procedural flaws the supervisor had successfully argued existed, the court rejected the supervisor’s arguments relating to the validity of the revised action, concluded the errors had been cured, and granted the VA’s renewed motion for summary judgment (Trinka v. Collins, No. 1:21-cv-02904-RC (D.D.C. July 25, 2025)).

Senior role. The supervisor joined the VA in a career SES position in January 2012. In June 2014, he was assigned to serve as chief learning officer for the VA’s IT office, and in July 2017 was promoted to its chief talent management officer.

Investigation. Meanwhile, in May 2014, the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) began an investigation after a DHS agent alerted OIG that an email sent to the supervisor’s VA email account was from an individual believed to be involved in a sex trafficking organization. In August 2014, the supervisor submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) form that stated incorrectly that his wife had been born in the U.S. and was a U.S. citizen. On another page, however, he stated correctly that her country of birth was Thailand.

2018 interview. OIG conducted an interview with the supervisor and his attorney via telephone in December 2018 and recorded the interview. According to OIG’s memorandum, he stated that he met his wife in 2010 through an escort service, learned in 2011 that she was in the country illegally, and married her in December 2013. He also told investigators that he verbally disclosed his wife’s undocumented immigration status to three different supervisors, and that none of them had an issue with it. All three supervisors denied his version of events.

Terminated over false statements. In 2020, the VA removed him from his career appointee position for “conduct unbecoming a federal supervisor” because, according to the VA’s Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection (OAWP)—established by Congress in June 2017—he provided false or inaccurate information to OIG when he stated during an interview on December 21, 2018.

Proposed removal letter. His proposed removal letter, issued on September 11, 2020, had also highlighted other allegedly false statements that had occurred prior to the interview, including his statement on the e-QIP form in 2014. The letter also noted his failure to disclose her immigration status when adding her as a dependent for insurance benefits and the use of her tax ID, rather than a social security number, to obtain a military dependent identification card. The letter added that “[o]n numerous occasions, it seems clear that you have willfully misinformed federal financial, insurance, medical, and security programs on the citizenship status of your spouse” which “seemed to be intentional.”

Lawsuit. After unsuccessfully grieving his removal, the supervisor brought the instant action alleging he was terminated without adequate procedures as required by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017, and VA procedures as articulated in its Corporate Senior Executive Management Office Letter No. 006-17-1—Senior Executive Accountability and Grievance Procedures (CSEMO Letter).

Due Process deficiencies. In 2023, the court issued a mixed ruling in response to the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Relevant here, the court concluded that the VA’s removal of the supervisor’s employment suffered from various Due Process deficiencies. Specifically, the VA acted impermissibly by: (1) applying the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017 (§ 713) retroactively; (2) depriving him of the audio recording of his OIG interview; and (3) applying an unconstitutional evidentiary standard by removing him from federal service based on a “substantial evidence” standard.

VA ordered to fix flaws. The court remanded the “entire matter as a whole... to the agency,” and instructed that “[f]ollowing the agency’s arriving at a new decision, if necessary, the parties may file renewed cross-motions for summary judgment.”

Amended letter. On February 29, 2024, the VA sent the supervisor a letter that purported to amend the embattled proposed removal letter. The amended letter made clear that the proposing official was applying a preponderance of the evidence standard and relied on conduct occurring after § 713 was amended in June 2017. The VA also provided the supervisor and the court with the audio recording of his OIG interview. The supervisor, through counsel, submitted a written response.

On March 21, 2024, the deciding official sustained the amended proposed removal letter and the penalty of removal. This letter similarly applied a preponderance standard and did not rely on conduct occurring before June 2017. The supervisor did not grieve the amended decision.

New SJ motions. The parties then filed renewed cross-motions for summary judgement. Significantly, the supervisor did not challenge the substance of the 2024 amended removal action. Therefore, the court only addressed the legality of the process undertaken by the VA to amend its removal action, and ultimately concluded that the 2024 action superseded the 2020 action.

Vacatur not required. First, the court rejected the supervisor’s contentions that it should have vacated the 2020 removal action rather than let it stand while allowing the VA to amend it. Significantly, § 713 provides that reviewing courts “may set aside any Department action found to be” unlawful. Thus, the court had the authority to remand to allow the VA to correct its errors without restarting the entire process and disrupting the agency’s senior management.

Authority to amend. The court also rejected the supervisor’s main challenge to the purported illegality of the VA’s amendment, concluding that the caselaw upon which he relied did not support his argument that once the court determined that the VA provided inadequate procedures, the agency was required to reinstate him and restart the removal process. Rather, on remand, the VA had the legal authority to amend its prior action.

Legal deficiencies cured. Finally, the court found that the 2024 amended action cured the 2020 action’s legal deficiencies. First, the agency no longer applied § 713 retroactively and instead relied upon the false and misleading statements he made during the OIG interview in 2018. The VA also provided him with the audio recording of the interview, which supported the agency’s findings. Though he vehemently argued that he should have had the opportunity to cross-examine the supervisors, the court was unconvinced. Finally, the revised action “clearly and consistently” applied the preponderance of the evidence standard.

The case is No. 1:21-cv-02904-RC.

Judge: Contreras, R.

Attorneys: Conor Delaney Dirks (Shaw Bransford & Roth) for James Trinka. Bradley Silverman, U.S. Department of Justice, for Douglas A. Collins and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Cases: PublicEmployees IndividualRights Procedure Discharge DistrictofColumbiaNews