The PennZone

WASHINGTON - PennZone -- Oral arguments have been scheduled for next month in the case of Anthony Perry vs Gina Raimondo, et. al, U.S. Department of Commerce.

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.

Perry, who served as a Supervisory Information Technology Specialist with Commerce's Census Bureau, says officials trumped up charges against him. They then used a settlement agreement to pressure him into dropping EEO complaints against the department.

"After 29 years of dedicated federal service I was pressured into early retirement or face termination without a pension," said Perry.

More on The PennZone

• Colonial Nissan Earns Capital One Top Performing Dealership Award
• BlazeHive's AI SEO Agent Outranks Human Writers on 500+ Google Top-3 Results in 5 Months, on Autopilot
• Logistics Expert Asks A Question Biology Has Overlooked: How Evolution Assembles Coordinated Novelty
• Phinge Exposes Massive AI Security Risks, Claiming Its Patented Hardware-Verified Architecture Is The Only Safeguard Against Surveillance Capitalism
• Phinge & CEO Robert DeMaio Publicly Declare Cash Settlements or Judgments Alone Cannot & Will Not Remedy the Deep Public Harm of Infringing Its IP

After signing the agreement, Perry fought to have his case heard in judicial forums including the Merit Systems Protection Board and later the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. However, both claimed they had no jurisdiction to hear the case. Eventually, Perry made it to the Supreme Court.

In 2017, the Supreme Court ruled that judicial review of Perry's case rested in the district court. It sent the case back to the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Rather than review Perry's case, Presiding Judge Chutkan dismissed it. In 2022, Chutkan rejected the high court's ruling. On September 30, 2022, in a Memorandum of 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."

More on The PennZone

• Dana Flanagan Expands the Authority Architect, Bringing a Nontraditional Approach to Executive Authority, Strategic Access and Business Growth
• Phinge's Netverse: Reclaiming the Digital Frontier For Everyone Through CEO Robert DeMaio's Vision of a True App-less, User Data Sovereign World
• DuraFast Label Company Launches Seiko SLP850 2" Thermal Printer with Free Label Promotion
• Scientific Figure Releases Free Layout Template Libraries for Graphical Abstracts and Research Posters
• Permian Museum announces the addition of an Ancient Alien Artifacts photo gallery

David Grogan a retired supervisory deputy U.S. marshal who served in the U.S. Marine Corps, relates an account of a similar settlement. "I will attend the Perry case oral arguments," says Grogan, who led a $300 million lawsuit against the Justice Department. "Like Anthony Perry and many truth-telling employees, I was subjected to tremendous retaliation from my employer and forced to drop claims against the Department.

"Coalition For Change, Inc. (C4C) members applaud Anthony Perry's resolve to challenge government coercion," say Tanya Ward Jordan, C4C's President. " It is common for rogue federal officials to come up with settlement agreements and then use them to silence employees who report unlawful acts. MSPB and EEOC protection rarely extend to civil servants who are victimized and public safety is often compromised."

The oral argument is scheduled for 9:30 a.m., February 12, 2024, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.