Adam Bruzzese v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General

A tenured government employee’s occupation is considered their property which cannot be deprived without due process requiring a notice of charges, an explanation of supporting evidence, a reasonable opportunity to respond, a hearing which provides for self-defense and representation by legal counsel. Federal agencies are also required to prove misconduct charges by a preponderance of evidence, and to not rely on ex-parte statements. The Questions Presented are: Can the adverse employment action against Adam Bruzzese stand if it was administered in a manner which does not satisfy due process requirements? Can a due process claim be raised if due process violations were included as elements of an EEO claim which was dismissed without considering these violations? Does the District and Second Circuit Courts’ lack of consideration of the ATF/DO J failure to adhere to any of the aspects of due process in administering the adverse employment action necessitate a per curiam decision in favor of Bruzzese?