FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT REPRESENTATION • NATIONWIDE
Gary is on your side
Protecting the careers and employment rights of FAA air traffic controllers.
Controllers make high-stakes decisions every day. When an FAA medical determination, proposed removal, training decision, workplace investigation or act of retaliation threatens your livelihood, you need an attorney who understands federal employment law and the aviation environment.
At Levine Federal Law, we represent federal employees nationwide, including FAA air traffic controllers confronting decisions that may jeopardize years of training, their professional reputation, retirement eligibility and the ability to continue working in aviation. We understand that a controller’s employment dispute often involves more than a standard personnel action: safety-sensitive duties, medical clearance requirements, facility procedures, training records and collectively bargained rights may all be involved.
Attorney Gary L. Levine previously represented federal agencies, including the FAA, in federal employment matters. He is also a licensed pilot. Today, he puts that agency-side perspective and familiarity with aviation to work for federal employees who need to protect their careers.
We serve controllers at airport traffic control towers, Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) facilities and Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs), including Certified Professional Controllers (CPCs) and developmental controllers. The legal protections available in any case depend on the individual’s employment status, the challenged action and the applicable statutes and agreements.
FAA air traffic controllers must meet strict medical clearance requirements. A medical condition, medication, mental-health concern or unfavorable evaluation can lead to removal from controlling duties and uncertainty about continued employment. We assess whether the FAA followed applicable procedures, whether its decisions rest on an accurate medical record, and whether the Rehabilitation Act requires consideration of reasonable accommodation, other productive duties or reassignment. Safety requirements remain important; the law does not guarantee clearance to control traffic when essential medical standards are not met.
We assist controllers facing notices of proposed removal, suspensions, demotions, allegations of misconduct, unacceptable performance, drug- or alcohol-related issues, and other employment actions. An effective response requires close attention to the FAA’s evidence, the charges, the stated rules, due-process protections and the available appeal forum. Our work can begin before a final decision, when a persuasive written or oral reply may still affect the outcome.
Controller investigations may involve an operational deviation, an alleged separation error, a runway event, facility instructions or questions about compliance with established procedures. We evaluate the employment consequences using available records, management directions, training history and contemporaneous evidence. Voluntary aviation-safety reporting systems have separate rules; submitting a report does not automatically replace a grievance, EEO complaint or other legal filing.
A training termination or disputed certification decision can end a controller’s career before it fully begins. We review training documentation, performance evaluations, opportunities to demonstrate proficiency, consistency in the application of standards, and possible discrimination or retaliation. Developmental, probationary and certified controllers may have different procedural and appeal rights; not every training decision can be appealed to the MSPB.
We represent federal employees in claims involving disability, race, sex, pregnancy, religion, national origin, age and protected EEO activity. These disputes may arise from scheduling, medical restrictions, leave, promotions, facility assignments, a hostile work environment or discipline. We assist with the federal-sector EEO process, from counseling and formal complaints to discovery, hearings and negotiated resolutions.
Reporting a substantial and specific danger to public safety, violations of law or other qualifying wrongdoing may implicate federal whistleblower protections. We evaluate potential retaliation through reassignments, unfavorable evaluations, investigations, discipline and other personnel actions, including remedies that may be available through the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and the MSPB. Not every workplace complaint qualifies as protected whistleblowing, and EEO retaliation is a distinct legal theory.
FAA controllers covered by a collective bargaining agreement may have negotiated grievance rights, while certain major adverse actions may also be contestable in another forum. Choosing one process can affect the ability to use another. We review the relevant agreement, FAA rules and statutory election provisions before advising on a grievance, internal process, EEO complaint or MSPB appeal. Our role is independent legal representation, not a replacement for the union’s responsibilities under the agreement.
Loss of medical clearance, involuntary separation and decisions about reassignment can have significant retirement consequences. Depending on qualifying service and the applicable retirement system, air traffic controllers may be covered by special retirement rules, including age-and-service eligibility and mandatory-separation provisions. We help clients consider how an employment dispute intersects with potential retirement or disability-retirement options.
The FAA operates under a separate personnel management system authorized by 49 U.S.C. § 40122. Certain federal laws and protections still apply, including specified whistleblower, labor-management, retirement and MSPB provisions, but an FAA employee’s rights should not simply be assumed to mirror those of every other federal worker.
For example, the statute preserves MSPB review of certain actions while also addressing an employee’s election of a forum when a major adverse action can be challenged through more than one process. The facts, bargaining-unit status, appointment type, action and timing determine the appropriate course. Selecting the wrong process, or missing a short deadline, may jeopardize important options.
Federal-sector discrimination matters generally require contact with an agency EEO counselor within 45 calendar days of the challenged event or personnel action. Many appealable MSPB actions generally have a 30-calendar-day appeal period, while FAA-specific and collectively bargained procedures may impose other time limits. These are general rules, not a substitute for checking the notice and law applicable to your situation.
If you receive a proposed removal, investigative interview notice, unfavorable training determination or medical-related employment notice, preserve the document and its delivery date. Keep employment records you are lawfully entitled to retain, and seek advice before electing a forum or providing a substantive response. Do not remove protected operational, personnel or medical records from government systems without authorization.
Learn more about our work in federal employee discipline, MSPB appeals, federal-sector EEO complaints and reasonable accommodation cases.
Often, yes. A controller may have an opportunity to respond to a proposed action and, depending on the action and employment status, may have a grievance, internal review or MSPB appeal route after a final decision. The best approach is to evaluate the notice and applicable rules before the response deadline.
The FAA may impose legitimate safety-based medical requirements for controlling air traffic. Nevertheless, the medical determination and the agency’s resulting employment action require separate analysis. Depending on the facts, issues may include medical documentation, proper procedures, reasonable accommodation, reassignment or retirement options.
Some FAA actions are appealable to the Merit Systems Protection Board, but the FAA’s separate personnel statute governs important aspects of jurisdiction and available forums. Not every training, medical or workplace decision is independently appealable. Review of the particular action is essential.
That depends on your bargaining-unit status, the type of action and the governing agreement. In some major adverse-action cases, electing one forum may preclude another. Obtain advice and consult your union representative before making an election or allowing a grievance deadline to pass.
Federal whistleblower laws may protect qualifying disclosures, including certain reports of substantial and specific dangers to public safety. Whether a particular report is protected and which remedies apply depend on the circumstances. Reporting discrimination or participating in an EEO matter may also be separately protected against retaliation.
Yes. Levine Federal Law represents federal employees nationwide. We offer remote consultations and can evaluate employment matters involving FAA facilities across the country. Privately employed contract-tower controllers may be subject to different laws and are not necessarily covered by the FAA federal-employee procedures discussed on this page.
For background information, consult the FAA’s air traffic controller medical and qualification information, EEOC guidance on contacting a counselor and MSPB appeal guidance. These resources are general; a lawyer can assess how they apply to your individual case.
SERVING FAA EMPLOYEES NATIONWIDE
If you are an FAA air traffic controller facing medical-clearance issues, training termination, investigation, proposed discipline, discrimination or retaliation, contact Levine Federal Law. We can assess the documents, deadlines and options that matter to your next decision.
Request a Free Initial Consultation
Levine Federal Law
gary@levinefedlaw.com
Representing federal employees nationwide.
Attorney advertising. This page provides general information, not legal advice. Contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship; one is formed only through a written agreement. Do not send privileged or confidential information through an unsecured website form. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.