The “Unsettled” Agreement
In the federal government, rogue officials operate like mafia bosses. They retaliate, trump up charges, and execute settlement agreements to silence victims so they won’t speak of unlawful acts. Therefore, illegal activities flourish within agencies. Ask Anthony Perry.
Perry dedicated twenty-nine years to federal service. He worked for the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Census Bureau in 2011 as a Supervisory Information Technology Specialist. Court records tell how Census officials proposed to remove him due to time and attendance issues. Nevertheless, Perry claims Census officials fabricated the charges after he complained of discrimination. He also claims his former employer pressured him to drop EEO complaints and forced him into early retirement through a settlement agreement.
To avoid losing his retirement pension, Perry signed the agreement and later retired. After retiring from federal service, he fought to have the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) hear his case. Yet, he was unsuccessful. The Board ruled it had no jurisdiction to listen to Perry’s “voluntary” settlement case. Afterward, Perry fought to have his case heard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Anthony Perry vs. Gina Raimondo et al., U.S. Department of Commerce). However, like the MSPB, the U.S. District Court ruled it had no jurisdiction over the matter.
With seemingly no place to turn, Perry took his challenge to the Supreme Court and struck a precedent setting victory for federal workers. In 2017, the Supreme Court ruled the district court had the authority to review Perry’s mixed case. Therefore, the Supreme Court sent Perry’s case back to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia presided by Judge Tanya Chutkan.
Perry, operating pro se, waited five long stressful years for a ruling from the U.S. District Court. To his dismay, on September 30, 2022, in a Memorandum Opinion, Judge Chutkan opined:
“Unfortunately for Perry, this Court will not reach his discrimination claims either but instead will affirm the Merit Systems Protection Board’s (MSPB or “Board”) decision dismissing his claims for lack of jurisdiction.”
Despite the Supreme Court’s 2017 ruling and the taxing years of litigation, Perry’s case remains unsettled. To address the open matter, Nathaniel A.G. Zelinsky, with Hogan Lovells, filed an amicus brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on behalf of Anthony Perry. The brief states the District Court erred when it declined to consider Perry’s discrimination claims de novo against his former employer, the U.S. Department of Commerce.
The court has set oral arguments on the case for February 12, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. Parties in the Perry case will convene in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Barrett Prettyman Building.
