Trending...
- Pawganja Token: Redefining Cryptocurrency with Transparency and Philanthropy
- Nayarit: Mexico's Best-Kept Secret for Fall and Winter Getaways in 2025
- PRP Aviation Earns Prestigious "Platinum Cirrus Training Center" Designation
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
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
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.
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
- Century Fasteners Corp. Mourns the Loss of Colleague and Friend, Mark James
- COLORICH PACKAGING Will Participate in the COSME Week 2025 TOKYO and Cosmoprof Worldwide Bologna 2025 Exhibition
- Hyperion Bancshares: Q4 Most Profitable Quarter
- IntellaTriage Launches New Patient Engagement Service
- Momentum Stock Trading: AI-Driven by Tickeron
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
- IntellaTriage Launches New Patient Engagement Service
- Discover Holistic Care at Advantage Chiropractic in Coopersburg
- Cascadia Global Security Launches Cascadia Off-Duty
- Comprehensive Braces Process Available at Exeter Smiles in Allentown
- Anti-Racism Song from Neal Fox Drops in Time for Martin Luther King Day
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.
Source: The Coalition For Change, Inc. (C4C)
Filed Under: Business
0 Comments
Latest on The PennZone
- Darrin Jones: The Creative Force Behind the Trends—Raising Questions About Influence in The Weeknd's Music
- Nine Startups Join Blackbaud's Tech Accelerator Program for Social Impact Solutions
- Comprehensive ISO 11608 Testing Ensures Safety, Quality, and Regulatory Compliance
- Foresight Practitioner Conference 2025 – Dates, Venue, Speakers, And Competition Finalists Announced
- ThoroughCare Partners with CareCo AI to Enhance Efficiency and Patient Care
- ATTENTION NASDAQ: REGN INVESTORS: Contact Berger Montague About a Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Class Action Lawsuit
- "It's All Good Until You Start Dating" by Beck Lewis – Launches Jan 20, 2025
- Latest Updates to Pennsylvania Medical Malpractice and Birth Injury Law
- Best Plant Varieties for Windbreaks and Shelterbelts
- Genuine Hospitality, LLC Expands Leadership Team with Key Appointments
- New-and-Improved Caribbean-Food Website Dishes Out Free Ground-Shipping Offer; Affiliate Program Garnished with Generous Commission
- 50th Mount Dora Arts Festival set for Feb 1 and 2, 2024
- CCHR Cites Newly Released Mind Control Records to Oppose Psychedelics
- Q'Apel Medical Announces CE Mark Approval for Armadillo SelectFlex™ Neurovascular Access System
- K2 Integrity Appoints Markus Schulz as Chief Technology Officer
- Top Book Printer in Central Ohio announces expansion
- Comp-U-Floor ERP to Showcase All-in-One Flooring Software at TISE 2025
- "Cannabis Industry Dream Team" Launches GreenFlow Systems to Revolutionize Manufacturing Standards
- Inner Strength Education Empowers Over 29,000 Philadelphia Students Through Mindfulness and SEL
- Inner Strength Education Celebrates 10th Anniversary with $100,000 Matching Gift from Pat Croce