Daniel Lockhart v. Department of Defense, 24-11177

Daniel Lockhart, an auditor at the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), was promoted to Supervisory Auditor subject to a one-year probation but was returned to his former non-supervisory role after a negative performance evaluation.
Lockhart filed an individual right-of-action appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), claiming retaliation for purported whistleblower activity under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8).
Lockhart alleged he made several protected disclosures, mainly about “gross mismanagement” and disagreements over his evaluations.
An administrative law judge (ALJ) denied his claim, finding Lockhart’s disclosures did not amount to protected disclosures under the statute and were more properly characterized as policy disagreements.
The MSPB affirmed, finding no error or abuse of discretion in the ALJ’s handling of the evidence and discovery, and Lockhart timely petitioned for review by the Eleventh Circuit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Lockhart made protected disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)	Disclosures showed gross mismanagement and were protected	Disclosures were policy disagreements, not protected by statute	Disclosures were not protected by statute
Whether any protected disclosures contributed to the personnel action	Retaliation for disclosures caused removal	Performance concerns predated disclosures, no causal link	No causal connection established
Whether ALJ abused discretion in discovery decisions	ALJ wrongly denied motion to compel	Discovery limit exceeded, information irrelevant	No abuse of discretion
Whether ALJ was biased or should be disqualified	ALJ showed bias or prejudicial conduct	No evidence of extrajudicial bias or prejudice	No grounds for disqualification

Kelliher v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2002) (standard of review for MSPB decisions is deferential; only overturned if arbitrary, capricious, unlawful, or lacking substantial evidence)
Lachance v. White, 174 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (reasonable belief standard for protected disclosures requires more than a subjective perspective; protection does not extend to policy disagreements)
Herman v. Dep’t of Justice, 193 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (reasonableness of employee’s belief about whistleblower disclosure depends on facts; WPA not a shield for policy disputes)
Sistek v. Dep't of Veterans Affs., 955 F.3d 948 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (petitioner bears burden to establish reversible error in the Board’s decision)
Curtin v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 846 F.2d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (evidentiary error is harmless unless it caused substantial harm to rights or case outcome)
Bieber v. Dep’t of Army, 287 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (ALJ disqualification for bias requires showing deep-seated favoritism or antagonism)