James H. Locus, Jr. Petitioner, v. Department of Health and Human Services, Respondent, 91 F.3d 171 (Fed. Cir. 1996)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - 91 F.3d 171 (Fed. Cir. 1996) June 19, 1996

Before PLAGER, SCHALL, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.


James H. Locus, Jr., a contract specialist with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences ("NIEHS"), seeks review of a decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board ( "MSPB" or "Board"), Docket No. AT-1221-95-0706-W-1, dismissing his Individual Right of Action ("IRA") appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Locus filed a complaint pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 1214 with the Office of Special Counsel ("OSC"), alleging that adverse personnel actions resulted from reprisal for: (1) a belief that he complained to the NIEHS Director regarding a supervisor's treatment of employees; (2) his filing of administrative grievances; and (3) his filing of a discrimination complaint with the agency's Equal Employment Opportunity Office. After the OSC determined that it would take no further action concerning Locus's reprisal claim, he appealed the decision of the OSC to the MSPB.

The Board determined that Locus failed to allege that adverse personnel actions were taken as a result of disclosures concerning: (1) a violation of law, rule, or regulation; (2) gross mismanagement; (3) a gross waste of funds; (4) abuse of authority; or (5) a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. See 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b) (8) (1994). Accordingly, the Board found that Locus did not meet the jurisdictional requirements for an IRA appeal. Locus has not met his burden of proving that the Board's decision to dismiss his appeal was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, procedurally incorrect, unsupported by substantial evidence, or otherwise not in accordance with law. See 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c) (1994).

COSTS

Each party to bear its own costs.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.