Aragon v. Tillerson
240 F. Supp. 3d 99
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Daniel P. Aragon, an entry‑level Foreign Service Officer, served five years and was denied tenure and separated after adverse Employee Evaluation Reports (EERs) from 2013 while serving in Dubai.
- Central factual dispute: Aragon supervised a Locally Engaged Staff member (CPS) who had a documented pattern of tardiness, unapproved absences, leave abuse, and insubordination; a counseling session between Aragon and the CPS escalated and was cited in the EERs.
- The May 2013 EER listed an Area for Improvement (Managerial) focused on that counseling episode; the November 2013 EER concluded Aragon was "unlikely to serve successfully" up to FS‑01 largely because of supervisory/interpersonal concerns.
- Aragon grieved the EERs to State HR/Grievance (denied), appealed to the Foreign Service Grievance Board (FSGB), which upheld the Department and found the EERs not falsely prejudicial; Aragon then sued under the APA in federal court challenging the FSGB decision as arbitrary and capricious.
- The District Court found the FSGB’s treatment of the May and November 2013 EERs deficient for failing adequately to consider and weigh relevant record evidence (e.g., CPS’s prior misconduct, testimonials, and later positive 2014–2015 EERs) and for not explaining apparent departures from FSGB precedent.
- Remedy: the court vacated the FSGB’s conclusion that the 2013 EERs were not falsely prejudicial and remanded the case to the FSGB for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the May 2013 EER was "falsely prejudicial" by omitting mitigating context about the CPS | Aragon: EER omitted CPS’s persistent insubordination and post’s lax prior management; FSGB ignored probative evidence and testimonials showing Aragon’s supervisory competence | State: the AFI was a limited, reasonable critique and the EER as a whole was largely positive; FSGB reasonably relied on record | Court: FSGB decision arbitrary and capricious as to May 2013 EER — failed to credit/engage key record evidence and to explain findings; remand ordered |
| Whether the November 2013 EER was "falsely prejudicial" for omitting the CPS context and contradicting examples | Aragon: EER failed to note mitigating facts and cited examples actually support Aragon; FSGB did not address this claim | State: criticisms were tempered by praise and supported by a good‑faith basis | Court: FSGB failed to engage Aragon's November EER arguments; remand required for fuller consideration |
| Whether FSGB departed from its precedent (failure to include mitigating factors) without explanation | Aragon: FSGB ignored controlling FSGB decisions that found omissions of mitigating context rendered EERs falsely prejudicial | State: prior decisions are fact‑specific and distinguishable | Court: Agency must confront potentially inconsistent precedent; FSGB should explain why prior analogous rulings do not control — remand ordered |
| Whether the Dubai assignment’s circumstances (dual supervisors, limited language training, suitability) required relief or affected EER analysis | Aragon: tour conditions were unusually burdensome and should have been considered in assessing EERs/tenure | State: FSGB considered these factors and found them not unreasonable for an untenured officer | Court: FSGB mentioned these circumstances but its analysis must more fully account for them if they bear on the false‑prejudice claims; instructs FSGB to consider suitability on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Zevallos v. Obama, 793 F.3d 106 (D.C. Cir.) (describing narrow, deferential arbitrary and capricious review)
- Am. Trucking Ass'ns v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin., 724 F.3d 243 (D.C. Cir.) (explaining highly deferential scope of review)
- Pharm. Research & Mfrs. of Am. v. FTC, 790 F.3d 198 (D.C. Cir.) (agency must provide reasoned explanation)
- Butte County v. Hogen, 613 F.3d 190 (D.C. Cir.) (agency must explain why it acted as it did)
- Jicarilla Apache Nation v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 613 F.3d 1112 (D.C. Cir.) (agency normally must adhere to its precedents or explain departures)
- PPG Indus., Inc. v. United States, 522 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir.) (when agency error found, court must remand for further agency action)