Ahuruonye v. Department of the Interior, 690 F. App'x 670

Background

Barry Ahuruonye, a Grants Management Specialist at the Department of the Interior, made multiple disclosures (Dec 2012–Sept 2014) alleging his supervisor Penny Bartnicki approved illegal grant awards. Bartnicki learned of some disclosures in Jan–Apr 2013–2014.
The agency issued several adverse administrative actions and debt collection notices: a proposed five-day suspension (Sept 25, 2014), debt/overpayment collection notices in June 2013 ($343.64), March 2015 ($1,790.44), and Oct 2015 ($91.03), and time-sheet designations (Mar–Apr 2015). He was later removed in April 2015 (removal sustained elsewhere).
Ahuruonye filed five separate MSPB whistleblower appeals challenging the proposed suspension, various debt collections/garnishments, and time-and-attendance records; the administrative judge consolidated them and issued an initial decision.
The Board found jurisdiction and that Ahuruonye made protected disclosures and that those disclosures contributed to the proposed suspension, but concluded the agency proved by clear and convincing evidence it would have proposed the suspension anyway.
The Board dismissed the four other appeals for lack of jurisdiction because Ahuruonye failed to make non-frivolous allegations that the agency officials handling the debts/time records knew of his disclosures.
Ahuruonye alleged judicial bias by the administrative judge; the court found no reversible error and rejected the recusal claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Board jurisdiction and protected-disclosure status for proposed suspension	Ahuruonye: disclosures were protected and contributed to Bartnicki’s proposed suspension	DOI: even if disclosures contributed, agency would have proposed suspension regardless	Court: Board erred — found contribution but failed to make adequate findings to support agency’s clear-and-convincing defense; vacate & remand for further findings
Sufficiency of agency’s clear-and-convincing evidence (would-have action)	Ahuruonye: agency relied on charges intertwined with protected disclosures (e.g., alleged falsehoods), so agency defense weak	DOI: charged multiple independent performance/ misconduct grounds supporting suspension	Held: Board’s factual findings about each specification were sparse/inconclusive; insufficient aggregate analysis — remand required
Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of debt collections and time-sheet claims	Ahuruonye: debt collections and attendance designations were retaliatory and linked to disclosures	DOI: officials handling collections/time records had no knowledge of disclosures; no causal link	Held: Affirmed — Ahuruonye failed to make non-frivolous allegations that deciding officials knew of disclosures or that disclosures contributed
Alleged bias of administrative judge (recusal)	Ahuruonye: judge exhibited pervasive bias, failed to rule on recusal motion, and made adverse rulings	DOI: judge presumed unbiased; adverse rulings alone insufficient	Held: No reversible error; allegations did not meet the high Liteky/Bieber standard; presumption of honesty applied

Key Cases Cited

Yunus v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 242 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (test for MSPB jurisdiction in whistleblower claims)
Cahill v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 821 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (definition of non-frivolous allegation for jurisdiction)
Garcia v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 437 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (standard on non-frivolous allegations and jurisdictional pleading)
Whitmore v. Dep’t of Labor, 680 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (burden and proof standards on the merits and agency defense under §1221)
Kalil v. Dep’t of Agric., 479 F.3d 821 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (factors for evaluating agency’s would-have action defense)
Carr v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 185 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (analysis of retaliatory-motive and comparative evidence)
Bieber v. Dep’t of the Army, 287 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (recusal standard applying Liteky to MSPB judges)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1994) (standard for judicial disqualification for bias or prejudice)