O'Donnell v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 561 F. App'x 926

O’Donnell, a soil conservationist at USDA’s NRCS, inspected land in 2005 and determined it was eligible for the Conservation Reserve Program; FSA later approved the landowner’s application.
O’Donnell’s supervisor disagreed with his eligibility determination and had the FSA terminate the contract; O’Donnell testified at the landowner’s appeal contrary to his supervisor.
The agency proposed a 5-day suspension for O’Donnell’s failure to follow his supervisor’s decision, ultimately reducing it to 3 days.
O’Donnell filed a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) claiming whistleblower protection under the WPA; after OSC declined corrective action, he appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).
The MSPB dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, finding O’Donnell did not make non-frivolous allegations that his contrary statements were protected disclosures under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8); O’Donnell appealed to the Federal Circuit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether O’Donnell alleged a protected disclosure under WPA (§ 2302(b)(8))	O’Donnell: his statements evidenced a violation of law (violation of program acreage eligibility under Pub. L. 107-171) and he reasonably believed this	Board: disagreement with supervisor’s discretionary eligibility determination is not a violation of law; no reasonable belief that a law/rule was violated	Held: No — O’Donnell failed to make non-frivolous allegations of a protected disclosure; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction affirmed
Whether Meuwissen was wrongly applied by the Board	O’Donnell: Meuwissen was overruled by Congress and should not bar protection here	Board: Meuwissen’s narrow holding about publicly known disclosures was what Congress overruled; Meuwissen’s proposition that mere disagreement with agency rulings isn’t protected remains applicable	Held: Court agrees with Board; Meuwissen’s relevant principle stands and legislative change does not alter outcome

Fields v. Dep’t of Justice, 452 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir.) (standard of review for MSPB decisions)
McCormick v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 307 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir.) (review of Board jurisdiction without deference)
Yunus v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 242 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir.) (MSPB jurisdiction requires exhaustion and non-frivolous allegations of protected disclosures and contributing factor)
Lachance v. White, 174 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir.) (WPA does not protect mere policy disagreement or insubordination)
Meuwissen v. Dep’t of the Interior, 234 F.3d 9 (Fed. Cir.) (disagreement with agency ruling/adjudication not a protected disclosure)