Olonode v. Department of Agriculture
697 F. App'x 696
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Dr. Taofeek Olonode was hired as a Commodity Grader at USDA AMS on Jan 10, 2016, subject to a one-year probationary period.
- AMS issued a Notice of Termination on Mar 17, 2016, citing four incidents between Feb 25 and Mar 8, 2016: neglecting duties (two incidents), rude treatment of a company employee, and disruptive behavior during training.
- After removal, Olonode filed an Individual Right of Action (IRA) claim alleging retaliation for OSHA-related disclosures: a flat-tired produce cart and lack of protective jackets in refrigeration units.
- The Administrative Judge found Olonode’s disclosures were protected and a contributing factor in his termination, shifting the burden to AMS to prove by clear and convincing evidence it would have fired him anyway.
- The AJ applied the Carr factors (strength of agency’s evidence, motive to retaliate, and comparisons to similarly situated employees) and concluded AMS would have terminated Olonode absent the disclosures, denying corrective relief.
- The Merit Systems Protection Board’s decision denying corrective action was appealed; the court affirmed, finding no reversible error in the Board’s Carr-factor analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Olonode’s medical injuries and reports should alter the Board’s IRA outcome | Olonode: AJ failed to consider injuries from the damaged cart and medical records | AMS: Termination analyzed under whistleblower framework; injuries do not change causation or remedy analysis | Held: AJ did consider the injury evidence; it did not change the outcome because causation/remedy turned on retaliation analysis |
| Whether AMS proved by clear and convincing evidence it would have terminated Olonode absent protected disclosures | Olonode: Termination was retaliatory and corrective action is required | AMS: Presented strong evidence of misconduct and argued it would have terminated him regardless | Held: AJ properly applied Carr factors and found AMS met its burden; Board denial of corrective action affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Carr v. Social Sec. Admin., 185 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (shifts burden to agency and sets three-factor test for proving same‑action defense under IRA)