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

• $750 Million Market on Track to $3.35 Billion by 2034: $NRXP Launches First-in-Florida "One Day" Depression Treatment in Partnership with Ampa Health
• SMS Launches Real-Time Fiber-Optic Monitoring for Critical Infrastructure
• $750 Million Market Set to Soar to $3.35 Billion by 2034 as Florida Launches First-in-Nation One-Day: NRx Pharmaceuticals (N A S D A Q: NRXP) $NRXP
• LATO AI Tailors AI-Powered Appointment Booking System for Custom Clothing Designer David Alan
• BITE Data raises $3m to build AI tools for global trade compliance teams

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

• Phinge Issues Notice of Possible Infringement, Investigates App-less AI Agents & Technology for Unauthorized Use of its Patented App-less Technologies
• Huntington Learning Center of Russellville Marks 1 Year Anniversary; Extends Reduced Grant-Aligned Rates to All Students in Learning Center Services
• CCHR Supports Call to End Coercive Psychiatry at World Mental Health Congress
• purelyIV Expands Wellness Services with Flu/COVID Testing and Menopause Coaching & Treatment
• WHES Retains BloombergNEF Tier 1 Ranking for Sixth Consecutive Quarter

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.