Case Name: Michael J. JOHNEN, Petitioner, v. U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD; United States Department of the Army, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-26
Citations: 713 F. App'x 678
Docket Number: No. 16-73427
Parties: Michael J. JOHNEN, Petitioner, v. U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD; United States Department of the Army, Respondents.
Judges: Before: GRABER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and SIMON, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 713
Pages: 678–679

Head Matter:
Michael J. JOHNEN, Petitioner, v. U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD; United States Department of the Army, Respondents.
No. 16-73427
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted December 8, 2017 San Francisco, California
Filed February 26, 2018
Wendy Ellen Musell, Elisa Joanne Stewart, Attorneys, Stewart & Musell LLP, Stewart & Musell LLP, for Petitioner
Stephen Fung, U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington, DC, for Respondent U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board
Jimmy McBirney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division—Commercial Litigation Branch, Washington, DC, for Respondent United States Department of the Army
Malvina Winston, U.S. Office of Special Counsel, Washington, DC, Lisa Powell, Attorney, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Oakland, CA, for Amicus Curiae United States Office of Special Counsel
Before: GRABER and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and SIMON, District Judge.
The Honorable Michael H. Simon, United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner . Michael Johnen alleges that the United States Department of the Army terminated him and barred him from his work site because he had made complaints that are protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act. In an opinion filed this date, pertaining to other issues, we dismiss the petition in part and deny it in part. This disposition concerns only the question whether Petitioner exhausted administrative remedies with the Office of Special Counsel with respect to his oral complaint made to supervisors, on July 25, 2013, as required by 5 U.S.C. § 1214(a)(3), so as to give the United States Merit Systems Protection Board jurisdiction over his appeal to that body. On de novo review, Daniels v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 832 F.3d 1049, 1054 (9th Cir. 2016), we grant and remand.
Petitioner's 2014 written complaint, fairly read, encompassed the oral complaint that Petitioner had made on July 25, 2013, to Deputy Garrison Commander Mark Hamelin and General Donna Williams, concerning nepotism. Petitioner stated that an Army official had engaged improperly in nepotism and had retaliated against him because he had opposed her actions. We conclude that the written complaint gave sufficiently detailed and clear notice and, thus, that the Board erred in holding that it lacked jurisdiction over this claim. When the Board reconsiders this claim on remand, it also must reconsider the related evidentiary rulings that precluded evidence concerning the July 25, 2013 oral complaint and concerning nepotism and other related issues.
Petition DISMISSED as to the United States Merit Systems Protection Board; as to the United States Department of the Army, petition DENIED in part, GRANTED in part, and REMANDED. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.