AGBOKE v. MSPB
- Summarized by Jonathan Batiste , Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
- 7 months 1 week ago
- Case Type:
- Consumer
- Case Status:
- Affirmed
- Citation:
- 2024-1975 (Federal Circuit, Jul 14,2025) Not Published
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Merit System Protection Board’s decision dismissing Plaintiff's individual right of action (“IRA”) appeal for a lack of jurisdiction. Disclosures of violations of Title VII do not support IRA jurisdiction; allegations of discrimination under Title VII fall under the jurisdiction of the Equal Opportunity Commission, not the Merit System Protection Board. The admission of a filing made a day late does not constitute an abuse of discretion. Disagreements about internal workplace rules do not constitute abuse of authority.
- Procedural context:
- Plaintiff, who worked as an auditor with the U.S. Trustees Program, filed an IRA appeal and four complaints with the Office of Special Counsel alleging that the U.S. Department of Justice engaged in retaliation against him. The Merit System Protection Board denied Plaintiff’s petition for review, which Plaintiff appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
- Facts:
- Plaintiff filed four complaints with the Office of Special Counsel alleging that the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) retaliated against him. He believed that he should have received an outstanding rating instead of a successful rating on his performance review. He claimed to have suffered whistleblowing reprisal after disclosing that DOJ trial attorneys improperly closed a case despite evidence of bankruptcy fraud. However, he did not exhaust proceedings before the DOJ, and he argued that his appeal did not encompass this complaint. Plaintiff argued that an administrative judge abused her discretion by disregarding a harmless error, here being the DOJ’s one-day delay in filing a response to a court order. He contended that the administrative judge's consideration of a reprimand letter amounted to an ex parte communication; however, the letter supported jurisdiction under the Equal Opportunity Commission and not IRA jurisdiction.
- Judge(s):
- Moore, Linn, and Cunningham
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!
