Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Ernest Hunter, Petitioner v. District of Columbia

No. 18-

In the

'upremc Court of the Enit eb 6tate.5

ERNEST HUNTER,

Petitioner,

V.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Respondent.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

ERNEST HUNTER

PETITIONER PRO SE

12033 ARCADIAN SHORES COURT

WALDORF, MD 20602

(202) 423-1370

ERNESTHUNTER78@YAHOO.COM

JULY 18, 2018

SUPREME COURT PRESS

• (888) 958-5705

•

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

RECEIVE

JUL 232018

QFJcE.QF THE cLER

QUESTION PRESENTED

Is the application of the relevant personnel rules

of the District of Columbia, including the Abolishment

and D.C. Whistleblowers Acts (DCWPA) by the

District's Office of Employee of Appeals (OEA) and

the District of Columbia's District Court and Circuit

Court of Appeals, unconstitutional?

11

PARTIES TO THE PETITION

PETITIONER

. Ernest Hunter, an individual

RESPONDENTS

. District of Columbia Government

District of Columbia, Child and Family

Services Agency

111

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

QUESTION PRESENTED..........................................i

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI.............1

OPINIONS BELOW ...................................................1

JURISDICTION ........................ .................................. 1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE....................................2

Introduction......................................................2

Statement of Facts...........................................3

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION.........4

CONCLUSION ............................................................ 5

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS

Memorandum Opinion and Judgment of the

Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia

(November 17, 2017) ..........................................la

Memorandum Opinion and Judgment of the

Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia

(May 8, 2018) ......................................................9a

Memorandum Opinion of the District Court of

the District of Columbia (November 29, 2012) 15a

Order of the Superior Court of the District of

Columbia (April 22, 2016) ................................34a

Order of Superior Court District of Columbia

Civil Division (October 23, 2014).....................41a

Opinion and Order on Petition for Review

(March 4,2014) ................................................. 60a

iv

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued

Page

Order of the United States Court of Appeals for

the District of Columbia

(September 27, 2013)........................................75a

Order of the United States Court of Appeals for

the District of Columbia (April 11, 2013) ........77a

Initial Decision of the Office of Employee Appeals

for the District of Columbia

(October 12, 2012) ............................................79a

Brief of Ernest Hunter

(August 7, 2012) ...............................................99a

I

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully seeks the court review of

the District of Columbia's Court of Appeals decision

relative to an administrative appeal from the District's

Office of Employee Appeals (OEA) and its Board of

Directors.

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinion of the District of Columbia Court of

Appeals, dated November 17, 2017 is included below

at App.la. The Memorandum Opinion and Judgment

of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia,

date May 8, 2018, is included below at App. 10a.

_y•j'

JURISDICTION

The Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia

entered its opinion on May 8, 2018 (App.loa). This

Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1254(a)

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

A. Introduction

Petitioner questions the constitutionality of OEA's

application of relevant District of Columbia Personnel

Rules, including the Abolishment and DC Whistleblower Acts (DCWPA). Petitioner is asking the court

to consider the retaliatory implications he presented

initially and at every level in this matter and whether

the constitutional assurances afforded under United

States law and the DC Whistleblower provisions,

including guaranteed rights have been abridged, as

he feels his initial challenges regarding his termination have yet to be fully and factually addressed,

including the following: the Fitness for Duty examination, Competitive Area and Competitive level, as well

as the Office of Inspector General investigation synopsis

that was issued just weeks before Petitioners being

selected for termination, and the fairness of allowing

the District director for the first time to conduct the

RIF without the mayor approval or established policies

and procedures, and whether the fact that this matter

was initially filed in federal court represents a causal

connection in an administrative or civil retaliation

claim?

The U.S. Supreme Court has an inherent authority

to review the decisions of lower courts that impact

the constitutional rights of U.S. Citizens. In this

matter questions of law regarding basic constitutional

rights, including the right to equal employment free

of retaliation and the right to freedom of speech,

3

including the right to file lawful complaints concerning

his treatment are being asserted, and if a federal

lawsuit, constitutes the ultimate complaint Elements

of this administrative appeals were first presented in

the U.S. District Court for D.C. in August 2009, while

employee was still employed with the agency after

being forced to take a Fitness for Duty examination,

one day after senior management found out about his

reports to the OIG concerning mismanagement and

discrimination. DCWPA makes the Fitness for Duty

Examination an actionable offense. Prior to taken

that action, Petitioner, filed administrative complaints,

and sent required notices to the District of Columbia's

Office of Risk Management (ORM), and mayor respectively. The ORM had the authority and responsibility

to investigate and mitigate Petitioners complaint, at

the earliest phase, but failed to do so, after assuring

Petitioner it would.

B.

Statement of Facts

The Petitioner was terminated, prior to that

court disposing of his federal claims and exercising

its discretion not to hear the state claims, dismissing

those claims without prejudice. Petitioner filed an

appeal relative to his termination with OEA on June

10, 2010. The appeal was after the District of Columbia,

selected him as the sole employee within his respective

competitive area and level to be subjected to a reduction in force. OEA's administrative judge (AJ) ruled

against Petitioner, and after considering employees,

Petition for Review, OEA's Board of Directors reversed

its AJ decision On March 4, 2014. On April 15, 2016,

The lower court reversed OEA's Board decision without addressing the issues Petitioner raised in his

IR

administrative appeal In a trial, that resulted after

Petitioner re-filed his claims in DC Superior Court, a

jury ruled against Petitioner, but on- May 8, 2018, the

DC Court of Appeals remanded Petitioners DC Whistleblower claim ruling the lower court incorrectly disposed

of that claim. The uniqueness and manner in which

both the District Government applied and the lower

courts sanctioned their laws warrants the highest level

of federal review.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

These applications of law includes for the first

time, allowing a cabinet level agency of the District

Columbia to execute a Reduction in Force, without the

mayor approval or without any established procedures,

and allowing the Districts Child and Family Services

Agency to shift the authority to conduct the RIF, from

a Consent Order, to D.C. Code 1-604.06, and Abolishment Act, without allowing Petitioner to address these

shifting authorities.

The lower court in contrast to this matter, also

in a matter relating to the Abolishment Act, noted

the fact that the District of Columbia had misapplied

the Abolishment Act,, impacting many employees. The

end result of these actions is Petitioner and his family

being denied certain life liberties, and happiness

through the denial of justice and misapplication of law!

Petitioner prays that the court hears this matter as

the roller coaster of rulings and opinions in the quest

for justice has impacted him severely emotionally!

5

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant

the petition for writ of certiorari.

Respectfully submitted,

ERNEST HUNTER

PETITIONER PRO SE

12033 ARCADIAN SHORES COURT

WALDORF, MD 20602

(202) 423-1370

ERNESTHUNTER78@YAHOO.COM

JULY 18, 2018