Standley v. MSPB
17-1691
Fed. Cir.Nov 13, 2017Background
- Petitioner Vaughn Standley, a DOE/NNSA general engineer working on the SABRS3 satellite payload, alleged the agency retaliated against him for whistleblowing after he opposed defunding SABRS3 and complained about being prevented from competing for a Director position.
- He filed an OSC complaint (closed with notice of appeal rights) and then an IRA appeal to the MSPB alleging violations of 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)(A) and (b)(9)(D).
- The MSPB and an Administrative Judge dismissed the IRA appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding Standley failed to non-frivolously allege a protected disclosure or substantiat e a refusal-to-obey claim.
- Central factual dispute: whether Standley’s statements about the need to field SABRS3 were a protected disclosure (evidence of a law violation or a substantial and specific danger to public health/safety) or merely a policy disagreement.
- The MSPB concluded decisions about space-based detection were committed to interagency discretionary decisionmakers (Secretary of Defense/NSC process) and §1065 of the 2008 NDAA did not prescribe particular means or make DOE employees legally bound to maintain SABRS3.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Standley made a protected disclosure under §2302(b)(8)(A) (violation of law) | Standley: disclosure and refusal to participate in defunding SABRS3 reasonably evidenced violation of 2008 NDAA §1065 and thus was protected | DOE: decisions on space-based detection are discretionary, committed to DOD/NSC; §1065 does not mandate specific systems so no objective violation | Held: Not protected — a disinterested observer could not reasonably conclude Standley’s statements evidenced a legal violation; jurisdiction lacking |
| Whether disclosure constituted a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety | Standley: defunding SABRS3 risked loss of nuclear detonation detection capability — a public-safety danger | DOE: alleged harms are speculative, unquantified, and concern policy choices about capability — not a substantial/specific danger | Held: Not protected — allegations were speculative and not sufficiently substantial or specific |
| Whether refusal-to-obey claim under §2302(b)(9)(D) was alleged and supported | Standley: he refused to follow supervisor’s plan to cancel SABRS3 because it would violate §1065 | DOE: no evidence an order required violating a law; refusal claim unsubstantiated | Held: Dismissed — refusal-to-obey not substantiated; no jurisdiction |
| Whether MSPB erred in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction | Standley: MSPB misapplied law and should have found non-frivolous protected disclosures | DOE: MSPB correctly applied legal standards for protected disclosures and reasonable-belief test | Held: Affirmed — MSPB decision that it lacked jurisdiction is correct |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnston v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 518 F.3d 905 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (standard of review for MSPB legal determinations)
- Bolton v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 154 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (appellate review bound by AJ’s factual findings supported by substantial evidence)
- Yunus v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 242 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (elements for MSPB jurisdiction in IRA appeals)
- Hicks v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 819 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (WPEA expanded IRA appeal rights; framework for protected activity)
- Lachance v. White, 174 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (reasonable-belief test; policy disputes not protected absent belief of legal violation or specific danger)
- Chambers v. Dep’t of Interior, 515 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (factors for whether alleged danger is substantial and specific)
- Harris v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 142 F.3d 1463 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (petitioner bears burden to show MSPB error)