Skip to main content
Christopher Francis Attig

Christopher Attig’s Legal Cases

17 total


  • Kirby v. Department of Energy

    Practice Area:
    Employment & Labor
    Outcome:
    Federal Employee's 30 day suspension was cancelled
    Description:
    Federal employee was suspended for 30 day for lack of candor and other disciplinary charges. After appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the suspension was cancelled and the employee restored to duty with back-pay, interest and attorney fees.
  • Trussell v. Office of Personnel Management

    Practice Area:
    Employment & Labor
    Outcome:
    MSPB found that client was entitled to AFA
    Description:
    OPM initially denied our client's application for optional retirement from the Federal Government and election of an Alternate Funded Annuity. OPM claimed that our client, the wife of a Federal employee, was not entitled to make the application and election pursuant to a Statutory Durable Power of Attorney. The MSPB ruled in favor of our client, awarding her the AFA and retroactive application for optional retirement of her husband. Client was reimbursed attorney fees/costs through a settlement agreement.
  • Bordes v. Office of Personnel Management

    Practice Area:
    Employee Benefits
    Outcome:
    Increase to client's retirement annuity
    Description:
    When our client, a federal retiree, reached age 62, OPM reduced his annuity pursuant to provisions known in civil service circles as the “Catch 62 provisions”. “Catch 62 provisions” allow certain federal employees with post-1956 military service to buy their military service into their civil service annuity. Employees who do this before retirement receive a larger monthly annuity throughout their entire retirement. Employees who do not make this deposit before retirement will have their annuity reduced at age 62. In discovery before the MSPB, the Firm learned that our client was misinformed by his retirement benefits counselor. He was misinformed that the “Catch 62 provisions” did not apply to him since he was ineligible for Social Security. Based on these facts, attorney Chris Attig persuaded OPM to withdraw its decision reducing our client's annuity. As a result, our client will receive a larger monthly annuity for the rest of his retirement.
  • Frensley v. OPM, MSPB Docket Number AT-0831-08-0242-I-1

    Practice Area:
    Employee Benefits
    Outcome:
    Increase to Client's retirement annuity
    Description:
    When our client reached age 62 yearse, OPM reduced his annuity pursuant to provisions known in civil service circles as the “Catch 62 provisions”. “Catch 62 provisions” allow certain federal employees with post-1956 military service to buy their military service into their civil service annuity. Employees who do this before retirement receive a larger monthly annuity throughout their entire retirement. Employees who do not make this deposit before retirement will have their annuity reduced at age 62. In discovery before the MSPB, the Firm learned that our client was retired using retirement forms that pre-dated the Catch 62 laws. Therefore, it was not possible that he was properly advised about the military service deposit. Based on these facts, attorney Chris Attig persuaded OPM to withdraw its decision reducing our client's annuity. Our client now receives a much larger monthly annuity payment.
  • Palmer v. Office of Personnel Management, MSPB Docket Number DE-0831-07-0538-I-1

    Practice Area:
    Employee Benefits
    Outcome:
    Increase to Client's retirement annuity
    Description:
    When our client reached 62 years of age, OPM reduced his annuity pursuant to provisions known in civil service circles as the “Catch 62 provisions”. “Catch 62 provisions” allow certain federal employees with post-1956 military service to buy their military service into their civil service annuity. Employees who do this before retirement receive a larger monthly annuity throughout their entire retirement. Employees who do not make this deposit before retirement will have their annuity reduced at age 62. In discovery before the MSPB, the Firm learned that our client was not informed of his right to make the military service credit deposit or the consequences of not making the deposit. Based on these facts, attorney Chris Attig persuaded OPM to withdraw its decision and allow our client him to make a post-retirement deposit of the military service credit. As a result, our client will receive a larger monthly annuity for the duration of his retirement.
  • Roberts v. Office of Personnel Management

    Practice Area:
    Employee Benefits
    Outcome:
    Increase to Client's retirement annuity
    Description:
    When our client reached age 62, OPM reduced his annuity pursuant to provisions known in civil service circles as the “Catch 62 provisions”. “Catch 62 provisions” allow certain federal employees with post-1956 military service to buy their military service into their civil service annuity. Employees who do this before retirement receive a larger monthly annuity throughout their entire retirement. Employees who do not make this deposit before retirement will have their annuity reduced at age 62. In discovery before the MSPB, the Firm learned that our client believed he had paid the deposit prior to retirement. OPM argued that the deposit was not a deposit for military service credit, but a deposit for our client's pre-1982 civil service (also known as a CSRS re-deposit). However, OPM conceded that our client never received an increased annuity in retirement as he should have if he had made the CSRS redeposit. OPM agreed to pay our client several thousand dollars in back-benefits for the CSRS redeposit and to allow our client to make the deposit for his military service credit so he could receive an additional increase in his retirement annuity.
  • M* v. Office of Personnel Management

    Practice Area:
    Employment & Labor
    Outcome:
    Client receives OPM Disability retirement
    Description:
    Our client was a Postal Service employee, whose name has been redacted out of privacy interests. Our client was accused of wrongdoing at the Postal Service, and my Firm successfully negotiated a settlement with the USPS allowing the client to resign with a clean record, in exchange for the Agency's support with the client's disability retirement application, and a portion of his attorney fees. After negotiating that settlement, my Firm handled the client's application for disability retirement, which had already been forwarded to OPM. The Firm appealed OPM's decision denying benefits to the client. In February 2008, OPM withdrew its decision denying retirement benefits to our client. He is currently receiving a disability retirement annuity.
  • R* v. Office of Personnel Management

    Practice Area:
    Employment & Labor
    Outcome:
    Client receives OPM Disability retirement
    Description:
    Due to privacy reasons, our client's name has been withheld. Our client was denied disability retirement benefits by OPM. The client came to the Firm after receiving a denial letter from the Office of Personnel Management. In November 2008, the Firm convinced OPM to withdraw its decision denying disability retirement benefits. OPM agreed to do so, and our client is currently receiving retirement benefits.
  • M* v. Office of Personnel Management

    Practice Area:
    Employment & Labor
    Date:
    Mar 06, 2009
    Outcome:
    OPM Withdraws Decision Denying Benefits
    Description:
    When our client reached age 62, OPM reduced his annuity pursuant to provisions known in civil service circles as the “Catch 62 provisions”. “Catch 62 provisions” allow certain federal employees with post-1956 military service to buy their military service into their civil service annuity. Employees who do this before retirement receive a larger monthly annuity throughout their entire retirement. Employees who do not make this deposit before retirement will have their annuity reduced at age 62. Our Client claimed that he was denied the opportunity to make his deposit due to administrative error by his employing agency. The Administrative Error consisted of advice from the employing Agency (Department of the Army) that was erroneous - our client claimed he was informed that failing to make the deposit would not impact his retirement annuity. OPM disagreed ,finding that our client had the opportunity to make the deposit. After discovery served on OPM, and discovery served on a third-party Agency, OPM withdrew its denial, and has allowed our client to make his deposit and receive the higher annuity. OPM agreed allow our client to make the deposit for his military service credit so he could receive an additional increase in his retirement annuity for the rest of his life.
  • A.M. v. Department of the Army

    Practice Area:
    Employment & Labor
    Outcome:
    EEOC AJ Issues Notice of Intent to Find discrimina
    Description:
    Our client is a helicopter electrician with Department of the Army. He claimed, among other things, that he was the victim of disability discrimination when he was not-selected for a work leader position in May 2007, and that he was a victim of disability discrimination when the Agency failed to accommodate him for his disabling condition (knee and shoulder impairments). The Administrative Judge agreed with our client, issuing notice of intent to issue a finding of disability discrimination, and giving the Parties additional time to attempt to reach a negotiated resolution. The case is still in negotiation pending the ruling of the Administrative Judge.