Court Opinion

ID: 9475593
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:32:03.567333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:44:48.355902
License: Public Domain

BALDWIN, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I agree that the penalty of removal would be justified on the charge of solicitation of a loan from a person who might have benefited by Stanek’s research conclusions. I am concerned that the board and majority fail to recognize an element of reprisal in this case.
The agency has apparently conceded that Dr. Stanek had completed his work assignments in a capable fashion. Dr. Stanek was reprimanded for failure to follow written directions and instructions from his supervisors. Those written directions and instructions were to stop engaging in formal discussion of the prestressed pavement papers presented at TRB Session 45. He was suspended for mailing the “Two Decades” paper, which had been prepared at the request of a congressional committee, in franked envelopes. The record is unclear as to whether the AWOL charges were associated with Dr. Stanek’s appointments for psychological counseling. The present charges of misuse of government property and solicitation were brought after Dr. Sta-nek’s computer files were confiscated and searched in response to publication of the Paradox Paper. There can be no doubt that at least some of the agency action has been in response to Dr. Stanek’s protected activity.
Solicitation of a loan as Dr. Stanek did, however, is not a protected activity. It is intolerable activity and removal is the appropriate response.