What happened
The First Circuit affirmed the government's win in a former Drug Enforcement Administration employee's suit challenging her removal from federal service, rejecting her arguments that the firing was retaliatory and that she was wrongly denied more discovery before summary judgment. Writing for the panel, U.S. Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson said, "After meticulous perscrutation of the record and briefs, we affirm."
Casandra Ann Hernández, who worked for more than two decades in secretarial and administrative roles in the DEA's Ponce, Puerto Rico, office, alleged that her termination was retaliation for a criminal complaint against a DEA agent, EEO activity and an earlier lawsuit against her employer. The case reached the First Circuit after the District of Puerto Rico granted summary judgment to the government and dismissed her case with prejudice.
The dispute followed earlier workplace conflicts over accommodations, leave, internal complaints and an audit-related confrontation. The opinion says the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility later investigated Hernández and that she was terminated on charges of insubordination, based on alleged refusals to communicate directly with a supervisor as instructed, and lack of candor during the investigation.
The Merit Systems Protection Board affirmed her removal, finding that the government proved insubordination and that termination was not unreasonable, even though the board did not sustain the lack-of-candor charge. Hernández then sought judicial review, arguing in district court that the removal violated Title VII and the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and that the MSPB's decision was unsupported.
Her appeal also challenged the district court's handling of discovery, including the denial of a Rule 56(d) request for more time to obtain personnel records, complaints against supervisors and related materials. The district court had concluded that her discovery requests had to be limited to her wrongful-termination retaliation claims and that she had not complied with meet-and-confer requirements.
On the merits, the First Circuit said the government had offered legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for the employment decision and that Hernández still had to point to specific evidence that those reasons were a sham. The panel said the record showed she received instructions to communicate directly with her supervisor about absences and medical leave and that she testified she ignored those instructions to avoid problems with him.
The court concluded that Hernández did not provide competent record evidence that the instructions were illegal, unreasonable, arbitrary or selectively applied to her. It also rejected her argument that the failure of the lack-of-candor charge before the MSPB meant the DEA's reliance on that charge showed retaliation, saying the remaining insubordination rationale was a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for termination that she had not shown to be pretextual.