Francis Yomi v. Merit Systems Protection Board

5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) stipulates that “the whistleblower’s disclosures are protected if s/he reasonably believes they evidence (1) “any violation of any law, rule, or regulation,” or (2) “gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority.” Question Presented No. 1 Did the lower courts (MSPB Regional Office, MSPB Appeal Office, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) clearly err when they said that the test in Whistleblowing Complaint under Section 23(b)(8) is only objective in that a disinterested or reasonable observer with the same whistleblower's knowledge and experience should conclude that wrongdoing occurred from the part of the Agency in order for the Court to have jurisdiction over the Whistleblower Claim, whereas the subjective test, which means that the whistleblower must have had a reasonable belief that the disclosed information indicated wrongdoing, meaning s/he believed it in good faith, is in fact the only test, or at least is part of the test/s, as clearly stipulated in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)? Question Presented No. 2 Did the lower courts (MSPB Regional Office, MSPB Appeal Office, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) clearly err when they never addressed Petitioner's argument that Agency admitted by itself to liability regarding 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) when it said: "The Agency does not contest Mr. Yomi’s beliefs.", and Petitioner said to those lower courts that the Agency confirmed that they have jurisdiction over his Complaint, and that it is now useless for the Court to determine whether or not a reasonable or disinterested observer with the same whistleblower or petitioner’s knowledge and experience would conclude that wrongdoing occurred from the part of the Agency? Question presented No. 3: Did the Federal Circuit err when it ruled that a disinterested observer would conclude that the management’s discretion can play a role in the selection, thus, would not believe that there was wrongdoing from the Agency that told Petitioner that his non-selection was based on the discretion of the management, whereas in fact that manager who said that, testified that she does not know if I was referred for that job, and was not involved in the selection, thus, lied on the discretion, and said that that job was governed by 5 U.S.C. § 332 (Competitive Examination), and the facts show that management’s discretion does not play any role there, contrary to jobs under 5 U.S.C. § 330 (Competitive Service) where it can play a role under 5 U.S.C. § 330.102? Question presented No. 4: Did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit in short) clearly err when Petitioner appealed his non-selection to the upper manager by disclosing that he asked to an Official involved in the selection why he was not selected for a job, and the Official responded: “You were not selected because you were not selected”, then the Federal Circuit ruled that there is no abuse of authority and no gross mismanagement because the Agency wasn’t required to tell him the reason of his non-selection, whereas in fact it ended up by telling the reason, by saying Petitioner was not selected because he was not selected, which reason should now be considered (by the Court) to prove that gross mismanagement and/or abuse of authority occurred? Question Presented No. 5: Did the Federal Circuit clearly err when it failed or did not address, nor rule on Petitioner’s claims regarding 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), and 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(l2)? Question Presented No. 6 Did the Federal Circuit clearly err when it said that the Agency did not retaliate against Petitioner because the employment contract stated that a failure of 3 examinations (exams) including make­ up could lead to termination, and that Petitioner’s termination letter stated that he failed 3 exams whereas this is not true, and whereas Petitioner did not fail 3 exams, nor more, and whereas for no given reason he wasn’t allowed to retake the. only exam he failed among several ones he took?