Late yesterday, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential order dismissing an appeal. This morning, the court released two nonprecedential opinions. Both come in pro se appeals. One comes from the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the other comes from the Court of Federal Claims. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a link to yesterday’s dismissal.
Howard v. Department of Defense (Nonprecedential)
Angela Howard was employed by the U.S. Department of Defense (agency) as a Clinical Laboratory Scientist at an agency hospital blood bank. While she was still in probationary status, the agency terminated her employment, and she then sought corrective action from the Merit Systems Protection Board, arguing that her termination violated whistleblower-protection provisions of 5 U.S.C. § 2302 because it was in retaliation for protected disclosures—particularly, that the agency was impairing her ability to take time for meal breaks during her work shifts. The agency responded, as relevant here, that it terminated Ms. Howard’s employment because of her conduct and performance, not because she made complaints. The Board denied relief. While concluding that Ms. Howard had exhausted her administrative remedies and had made protected disclosures that were a contributory factor in the termination, the Board determined that the agency had proved by clear and convincing evidence that it would have terminated her employment even in the absence of the protected disclosures. See Howard v. Department of Defense, No. DC-1221-23-0349-W-1, 2023 WL 9777265 (M.S.P.B. Nov. 13, 2023) (2023 Decision); Howard v. Department of Defense, No. DC-1221-23-0349-W-1, 2025 WL 33518 (M.S.P.B. Jan. 3, 2025) (2025 Decision). On Ms. Howard’s appeal, we affirm.
Rodriguez v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Suzette Grace Rodriguez appeals a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Claims Court”) dismissing her complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm.