Cahill v. Merit Systems Protection Board
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 8554
| Fed. Cir. | 2016Background
- Matt Cahill was hired by CDC in March 2011 to support data management for the Behavioral and Clinical Surveillance Branch (BCSB); he raised concerns at a March 22, 2012 meeting about Pocket PCs and data-collection procedures.
- After the meeting, Cahill alleges adverse personnel actions: exclusion from meetings/assignments, negative performance feedback, placement on a Performance Assistance/Improvement Plan, and changes to his telework agreement.
- Cahill filed a whistleblower complaint with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) in February 2014; OSC closed the file and he then appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) as an individual-right-of-action appeal under 5 U.S.C. § 1221.
- The MSPB found Cahill had alleged a protected disclosure and covered personnel actions but held he failed to nonfrivolously allege that any official who took the personnel actions knew of his March 2012 disclosure, and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- The Federal Circuit reviewed de novo and, considering the full written record (including notes and emails), held Cahill nonfrivolously alleged that at least one relevant official (Assistant Branch Chief Dawn Gnesda, Branch Chief Timothy Green, or Team Lead Jacek Skarbinski) attended or knew of the March 2012 disclosure, reversing and remanding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cahill nonfrivolously alleged that a protected disclosure was a contributing factor in personnel actions | Cahill: he disclosed problems at a March 2012 group meeting attended by BCSB management, team leads, project leads, and QSDM management, and adverse actions followed | Agency/MSPB: Cahill did not identify that any official who took personnel actions knew of the March 2012 disclosure, so contributing-factor element not nonfrivolously alleged | Court: Read in context (notes, org structure, agency silence), Cahill adequately alleged that at least one implicated official knew of the disclosure; reversal and remand |
| Whether the MSPB properly required plaintiff to name specific attendees to satisfy the knowledge element | Cahill: contextual allegations and available records sufficed; agency had opportunity to dispute attendance/knowledge | MSPB/agency implicitly: more specific naming was required to show knowledge by the actors | Court: specificity not required at pleading stage if record plus plausible inferences make knowledge nonfrivolous; agency’s failure to challenge specificity matters |
| Whether absence of more detailed allegations justified dismissal without giving opportunity to amend | Cahill: agency silence deprived him of notice to amend; amendment might supply names/details | MSPB: dismissal appropriate because allegations were insufficient as pleaded | Court: agency’s silence meant Cahill wasn’t put on notice; dismissal was erroneous and remand required |
| Proper standard for nonfrivolous jurisdictional allegations in whistleblower IRA appeals | Cahill: nonfrivolous means allegations that, if proven, could establish a prima facie case | Agency: (implicit) stricter specificity required in this record | Court: Affirms nonfrivolous standard—view allegations in context and permit reasonable inferences; failure to challenge specifics by agency is significant |
Key Cases Cited
- Kahn v. Dep’t of Justice, 528 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir.) (standard for reviewing MSPB jurisdictional allegations and written-record review)
- Garcia v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 437 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir.) (definition of "non-frivolous allegation" that could make a prima facie case)
- Spruill v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 978 F.2d 679 (Fed. Cir.) (requirements for establishing MSPB jurisdiction in IRA appeals)
- Dumas v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 789 F.2d 892 (Fed. Cir.) (non-frivolous allegation standard)
- Middleton v. Dep’t of Def., 185 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir.) (contextual reading of allegations relevant to jurisdictional assessment)