Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-14-03047/USCOURTS-ca13-14-03047-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Department of Defense
Respondent
Manuel Losada
Petitioner

Document Text:

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

MANUEL LOSADA,

Petitioner,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

Respondent.

______________________ 

2014-3047

______________________ 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. DC-0752-10-0800-M-1.

______________________ 

Decided: February 4, 2015 

______________________ 

MANUEL LOSADA, of Orlando, Florida, pro se. 

A. BONDURANT ELEY, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department 

of Justice, of Washington, DC, for respondent. With her 

on the brief were STUART F. DELERY, Assistant Attorney 

General, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., Director, and 

MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., Assistant Director. 

______________________ 

Case: 14-3047 Document: 15-2 Page: 1 Filed: 02/04/2015
2 LOSADA v. DEFENSE

Before DYK, PLAGER, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

DYK, Circuit Judge. 

Manuel Losada seeks review of a decision of the Merit 

Systems Protection Board (“the Board”). The Board 

affirmed the Department of Defense Education Activity’s 

(“DoDEA” or “the agency”) removal of Losada for misconduct. Because the Board did not err in finding by clear 

and convincing evidence that Losada would have been 

removed even absent a protected disclosure, we affirm. 

BACKGROUND

In June 2010, Losada was removed from his position 

as a Guidance Counselor at Naples Elementary School 

(“NES”), a school for military dependents overseas which

is operated by DoDEA. Losada was removed for (1) 

unauthorized disclosure of confidential information based 

on four disclosures of confidential information to a reporter for Stars and Stripes magazine (the “unauthorized 

disclosure charge”); and (2) failure to follow procedures 

governing the reporting of child abuse (the “failure to

follow procedures charge”). 

The circumstances surrounding Losada’s removal are 

set forth in our opinion on Losada’s prior appeal. See 

Losada v. Dep’t of Defense, 484 F. App’x 529, 530–31 

(Fed. Cir. 2012). Briefly, in March and April 2010, Losada disclosed confidential information about identifiable 

students and teachers to a reporter for Stars and Stripes. 

Id. at 530. And in a March 17, 2010, email (“the email”) 

to the Office of Special Counsel (“OSC”), Losada described 

an incident of suspected child abuse that he had not 

reported in accordance with DoDEA regulations. Id. 

In our prior decision, we affirmed the Board’s finding

that DoDEA had proven the unauthorized disclosure 

charge with respect to the four disclosures to Stars and 

Case: 14-3047 Document: 15-2 Page: 2 Filed: 02/04/2015
LOSADA v. DEFENSE 3

Stripes. Those disclosures were not protected under the 

Whistleblower Protection Act (“WPA”), 5 U.S.C. 

§ 2302(b)(8)(A), because they “generally described ‘childon-child’ incidents, which do not constitute ‘child abuse’ 

and are thus not protected disclosures . . . .” 484 F. App’x 

at 532 (citations omitted). We remanded with respect to 

the email that Losada sent to OSC. The subject line of 

the email was “child hurt yesterday at NES by an adult.” 

Id. The email described an incident which Losada believed constituted child abuse. Id. at 533. We directed 

the Board to determine on remand (1) whether the email 

constituted a protected disclosure under the WPA that 

was a “contributing factor” in the personnel action against 

Losada, and, if so, (2) whether DoDEA met its burden of 

showing “by clear and convincing evidence that it would 

have taken the same personnel action in the absence of 

such a disclosure.” 5 U.S.C. § 1221(e); 484 F. App’x at 

533. 

On remand, the administrative judge (“AJ”) found 

that the email was a protected disclosure under the WPA 

and was also a contributing factor to the agency’s removal 

decision. Nevertheless, the AJ determined that the 

agency demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence 

that it would have taken the same personnel action in the 

absence of Losada’s email disclosure because Losada 

would have been removed based solely on the disclosure of 

confidential information to Stars and Stripes and the 

failure to report suspected child abuse.1 The full Board 

denied Losada’s petition for review and affirmed the 

1 We need not decide whether the first charge (the 

disclosure to Stars and Stripes) standing alone supports a 

finding that DoDEA “would have taken the same personnel action in the absence of such a disclosure.” 5 U.S.C. 

§ 1221(e)(2). 

 

Case: 14-3047 Document: 15-2 Page: 3 Filed: 02/04/2015
4 LOSADA v. DEFENSE

initial decision, finding that “the agency demonstrated 

that it properly considered all the relevant aggravating 

and mitigating circumstances in determining to impose 

removal based on the sustained charges.” App. 30.

Losada seeks review of the Board decision. We have 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9).

DISCUSSION

Our review of the Board’s decision is limited in scope. 

We may only set aside an agency’s “action, findings, or 

conclusions” if they are “(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse 

of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) 

obtained without procedures required by law, rule, or 

regulation having been followed; or (3) unsupported by 

substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c).

The question is whether the agency properly established “by clear and convincing evidence that it would 

have taken the same personnel action in the absence of [a 

protected] disclosure.” 5 U.S.C. § 1221(e)(2). 

In Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean, No. 

13-894, slip op. at 1 (Jan. 21, 2015), decided during the 

pendency of this appeal, the Supreme Court addressed 

the WPA’s exception for disclosures that are “specifically 

prohibited by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)(A). Under this 

exception, disclosures which would otherwise be protected 

under the WPA are not protected if they are “specifically 

prohibited by law.” Id. The Court held that this exception applies only to statutes, rather than to agency rules 

or regulations. MacLean, slip op. at 11. 

Under MacLean, if the basis for the failure to follow 

procedures charge were the disclosure to OSC via email in 

violation of DoDEA’s regulations, that would not support 

a finding “by clear and convincing evidence that [DoDEA]

would have taken the same personnel action in the absence of such a disclosure.” 5 U.S.C. § 1221(e). But that 

Case: 14-3047 Document: 15-2 Page: 4 Filed: 02/04/2015
LOSADA v. DEFENSE 5

was not the case. The DoDEA regulation does not prohibit whistleblower disclosure, but rather requires additional 

disclosure via particular channels. The agency charge 

alleged: 

You failed to promptly report the suspected abuse 

to the local Family Advocacy Program [FAP] officer and to your immediate supervisor, as is required by DoDEA Regulation 2050.9. In fact, you 

never reported the incident to you[r] first line supervisor.2 

App. 15. The AJ noted that “[s]ignificantly . . . the agency 

did not charge or seek to discipline the appellant for 

misconduct because he disclosed this information to OSC.” 

App. 17 (emphasis in original). And the Board further 

explained that “[t]he administrative judge found that the 

agency in this case did not discipline the appellant because he disclosed suspected child abuse, but rather 

because, after witnessing the incident, he did not timely 

report the information to agency officials as required by 

agency procedures . . . .” App. 26. Therefore, as the 

agency, the AJ, and the Board made clear, the basis of the 

second charge was that Losada did not disclose the suspected child abuse via the proper channels, rather than 

the sending of the email to OSC. 

We see nothing in MacLean to suggest that agency 

employees cannot be disciplined for failing to adhere to 

applicable agency regulations requiring them to report 

misconduct through agency procedures in addition to 

2 DoDEA Regulation 2050.9 requires the reporting 

of suspected child abuse to the local Family Advocacy 

Program (“FAP”) officer or the employee’s immediate 

supervisor. Losada, 484 F. App’x at 529 & n.2 (citing 

DoDEA Regulation 2050.9).

 

Case: 14-3047 Document: 15-2 Page: 5 Filed: 02/04/2015
6 LOSADA v. DEFENSE

their whistleblower disclosures through other channels. 

Here, substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding

that DoDEA proved by clear and convincing evidence that 

it would have removed Losada on the basis of the disclosures to Stars and Stripes and the failure to report suspected child abuse to the proper channels.

The Board also sufficiently addressed Losada’s contentions with respect to the retaliatory motive of the 

deciding agency officials, a factor relevant to whether an 

agency would have taken the same personnel action in the 

absence of a protected disclosure. See Carr v. Soc. Sec. 

Admin., 185 F.3d 1318, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Although 

the AJ may have improperly discounted this factor because the DoDEA officials responsible for the personnel 

action were not named in the email and testified that they 

did not act under a retaliatory motive, the Board sufficiently addressed this issue and amended the initial 

decision to find that the officials had “more than a minimal motive to retaliate” against Losada. And the Board 

nonetheless found that clear and convincing evidence 

supported Losada’s removal. App. 28.

We have considered Losada’s remaining arguments, 

and they are without merit.

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs. 

Case: 14-3047 Document: 15-2 Page: 6 Filed: 02/04/2015