In a recent ruling, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the decision to remove Valerie Simpson from her position as an Advanced Medical Support Assistant at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). This decision stems from allegations of misconduct, specifically that she took jewelry from a vendor without payment. The court's ruling is significant as it reinforces the standards for employee conduct within federal agencies and the procedures for disciplinary actions.

Valerie Simpson, who represented herself in the appeal, was removed from her position on July 27, 2018, after an investigation into her conduct. The VA accused her of taking two jewelry sets from a vendor at the Wilmington VA Medical Center without paying for them. Simpson claimed she had permission to take the jewelry, but the vendor, Cheryl Price, denied this. The case highlights the importance of integrity and accountability in federal employment.

The dispute began when Simpson was accused of conduct unbecoming a federal employee. The VA's charges included taking the jewelry without permission, providing inconsistent statements during the investigation, and making misleading comments to VA police. After an initial decision by an administrative judge to uphold her removal, the case was appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board), which also affirmed the removal. Simpson then petitioned the Federal Circuit for review.

On November 5, 2026, the Federal Circuit issued its ruling, affirming the Board's decision. The court found that the evidence supported the conclusion that Simpson engaged in misconduct. The court stated, "The weight of the evidence establishes that [Simpson] engaged in the misconduct as alleged." The judges on the panel were not specified in the opinion.

The court's ruling emphasized that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings. The judges noted that the administrative judge had credited Price's testimony over Simpson's and found Simpson's accounts to be inconsistent. The court also addressed Simpson's arguments regarding the standards of evidence used in her case, stating that the agency's use of the substantial-evidence standard was appropriate and did not affect the outcome.

Furthermore, the court examined Simpson's claims of whistleblower retaliation, concluding that the VA demonstrated it would have removed her regardless of her protected disclosures. The ruling referenced the Carr factors, which assess the likelihood of retaliation, finding that the evidence supported the VA's decision to terminate Simpson.

In addition to addressing the misconduct allegations, the court reviewed whether the VA properly considered the Douglas factors, which guide the assessment of appropriate penalties for federal employees. The court found that the VA had indeed considered these factors, including the seriousness of the misconduct and Simpson's overall employment history, in determining the penalty of removal.

The ruling has significant implications for federal employees and the standards of conduct expected from them. It underscores the importance of integrity and accountability in federal employment and reinforces the procedures that agencies must follow when addressing misconduct. The decision may serve as a precedent for similar cases in the future, as it clarifies the standards for evaluating employee conduct and the evidence required to support disciplinary actions.

Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Simpson will seek further appeals or if any related cases are pending. The court's ruling is final unless challenged in a higher court, but the opinion did not specify any plans for further legal action by Simpson. The case serves as a reminder of the serious consequences of misconduct in federal employment and the rigorous standards that employees must adhere to.