Niskey v. Nielsen, Civil Action No. 2018-3044

Plaintiff Lawrence Niskey, an African American former DHS employee, challenges suspension, security‑clearance revocation, termination, and denial of retirement/pension benefits.
Niskey appealed his termination to the MSPB (initially focused on procedural errors); ALJ and the Board affirmed the removal; he later pursued EEO counseling and filed a formal EEO complaint alleging race discrimination and retaliation.
Niskey previously sued in this district alleging discrimination, retaliation, and agency violations; the district court dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and the D.C. Circuit affirmed; certiorari was denied.
In this new action Niskey alleges APA claims, Fifth Amendment due‑process claims, and renewed Title VII discrimination/retaliation and hostile‑work‑environment theories, seeking back pay, benefits, damages, reinstatement, and fees.
Defendant (Acting DHS Secretary) moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for res judicata and under 12(b)(1) for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction as to the due‑process claims, arguing CSRA and Title VII provide exclusive remedies.
The Court granted the motion: it held Niskey’s claims are barred by claim and issue preclusion and that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the due‑process claim because the CSRA/Title VII regimes are the exclusive avenues for such federal employee claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Claim preclusion (res judicata) — same cause of action?	Niskey says new theories (APA, constitutional) distinguish this suit.	Defendant says claims arise from the same nucleus of facts previously litigated and could have been raised earlier.	Court: barred by claim preclusion; new theories on old facts cannot evade preclusion.
Issue preclusion — exhaustion ruled previously?	Niskey contends prior dismissal was jurisdictional or not on the merits.	Defendant: prior courts decided exhaustion; issue preclusion applies.	Court: issue preclusion applies; exhaustion was litigated and decided; no unfairness in preclusion.
Whether APA/constitutional claims are independently reviewable now	Niskey argues APA review and due‑process claims were not previously adjudicated.	Defendant contends the CSRA/Title VII frameworks provide exclusive remedies for employment disputes.	Court: APA/constitutional theories arising from same facts are barred by res judicata; due‑process claim lacks jurisdiction.
Subject‑matter jurisdiction over due‑process claim	Niskey alleges Fifth Amendment violations during removal.	Defendant argues CSRA and Title VII are exclusive remedies for federal employment disputes.	Court: lacks jurisdiction over due‑process claim; CSRA/Title VII are exclusive.

Niskey v. Johnson, 69 F. Supp. 3d 270 (D.D.C. 2014) (prior district‑court decision dismissing Niskey’s earlier suit)
Niskey v. Kelly, 859 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (appellate decision affirming dismissal for failure to administratively exhaust)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard for Rule 8 and 12(b)(6))
Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008) (definition and scope of res judicata)
United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439 (1988) (CSRA provides exclusive review for many federal employment disputes)
Brown v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820 (1976) (Title VII is the exclusive remedy for covered federal employment discrimination claims)
Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 (1980) (issue preclusion doctrine described)
Yamaha Corp. of Am. v. United States, 961 F.2d 245 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (standards for issue preclusion)