Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Camerron L. Bradberry, Petitioner v. Department of the Air Force

' i ' L .; ! : i . :

i■ i b

■ 25“ 55 41

No.

Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

AUG 2 8 2025

|

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

C'MgEgon I-

— PETITIONER

(Your Name)

vs.

_ RESPONDENT(S)

pd-^CTOfciYT

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

uactilo

STAVES

THL

OF- Apices

CT’^.C^'T

(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

L(Your Name)

gasotu 6>f- P(ACE

(Address)

(City, State, Zip Code)

(786^

(Phone Number)

____

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

1. Whether a federal agency denies a tenured career employee their Fifth Amendment due

process rights when it terminates them using the summary procedures reserved for a

probationary employee, and whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

errs by affirming a lower decision that fails to adjudicate this constitutional and

procedural violation.

2. Whether the evidentiary framework for a whistleblower reprisal claim is fatally

undermined when the agency's evidence of a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for

termination was developed through a process that improperly stripped the employee of

their statutory due process rights to challenge that evidence.

LIST OF PARTIES

[XI All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

[ ] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of

all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this

petition is as follows:

RELATED CASES

• SeADteeM v OtPTof 7Ht (W. FO«S, No.

uonto siflTEs Ccix„ oT <^*>csFoti«LFWljw<.ai2curr.’

ggADgt^ V.

ep71tt

ToEtC| wo.pE,gg-_23_ 0105- U5-X

wwtoswtcs wn Swt.m PceyEjCI1DM

ftyoflC 02.0^ Issuer?

Zo^

8^0g^ru. W"y 6F TK^

lAATTbO STATES

IMTCAL.

Dt’0%2.

S<{Srtvn peoTEcn^ ^^9.

IsscxtQ

zo£5

C

Table of Contents

Opinions Below........ ........ . ....... ...................................................... 1

Jurisdiction........................................................................................ 2

Constitutional And Statutory Provisions Involved..................................3

Statement Of Case............................................................................ 5

Reasons for Granting The Writ.......................................................... 7

Conclusion.................................. .................................................... 9

Proof Of Service............................................................................... 10

Index To Appendices

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C

Appendix D

Order Denying Rehearing (June 5.2025)

Federal Circuit Decision (April 10, 2025)

MSPB Final Order (Aug. 27, 2024)

MSPB Initial Decision (Aug. 10, 2023)

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

[XI For cases from federal courts:

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix

the petition and is

— to

[ ] reported at---------------------------------------------- :----------- ; or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix

the petition and is

— to

[ ] reported at------------------------------- -------------------------- ; or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

M is unpublished.

[ ] For cases from state courts:

The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at

Appendix

to the petition and is

[ ] reported at

...---------------------------------------------- ; or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the

appears at Appendix

to the petition and is

[ ] reported at

.............. —---------- or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

court

JURISDICTION

DQ For cases from federal courts:

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case

was Atrc 10^ 7OZS

[ ] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

[X] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of

Appeals on the following date:

, anc] a copy of the

order denying rehearing appears at Appendix ...A

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including(date) on(date)

in Application No. _ A....

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1).

[ ] For cases from state courts:

The date on which the highest state court decided my case was

A copy of that decision appears at Appendix

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:

---------------------------- , and a copy of the order denying rehearing

appears at Appendix

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including(date) on(date) in

Application No.

A

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a)..

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

1. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Text: “No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...”

Relevance: As a federal employee who had completed prior federal service without a break,

Petitioner was a career employee, not a probationary one. This status grants him a

constitutionally protected property interest in his continued employment. By terminating

Petitioner using the summary procedures reserved for a probationary employee, the Agency

deprived him of this property interest without the required due process protections, such as a

formal notice of charges, the right to an oral reply, and full appeal rights under 5 U.S.C. Chapter

75.

2. The Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA), 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)

Text: “(b) Any employee who has authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or

approve any personnel action, shall not, with respect to such authority—... (8) take or fail to

take, or threaten to take or fail to take, a personnel action with respect to any employee or

applicant for employment because of— (A) any disclosure of information by an employee or

applicant which the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences— (i) any violation of

any law, rule, or regulation, or (ii) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of

authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety...”

Relevance: This statute formed the basis of Petitioner's claim before the Merit Systems

Protection Board (MSPB). Petitioner made a protected disclosure on January 15,2020, and was

subjected to a personnel action (termination) less than a month later. The lower courts’

application of the WPA is a central issue in this petition.

3. The Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA), 5 U.S.C. § 7703

Text: “(a)(1) Any employee or applicant for employment adversely affected or aggrieved by a

final order or decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board may obtain judicial review of the

order or decision. ...(c) In any case filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal

Circuit, the court shall review the record and hold unlawful and set aside any agency action,

findings, or conclusions found to be— (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...”

Relevance: This statute provided the jurisdictional basis for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Federal Circuit to review the MSPB's decision in Petitioner’s case. The Federal Circuit’s

application of its standard of review under this statute is at issue in this petition.

4. Federal Regulations on Probationary Periods, 5 C.F.R. § 315.801 & § 315.802

Text (Summary): These regulations govern when a federal employee is required to serve a

probationary period. Specifically, 5 C.F.R. § 315.802(b) states that prior service under certain

conditions (such as in the same agency and same line of work) can be counted toward the

completion of a probationary period. It also provides that an employee who has completed a

probationary period and is transferred without a break in service may not be required to serve a

new one.

Relevance: These are the key regulations that support Petitioner’s claim that he was a career

employee and not subject to a new trial period upon his transfer from the Department of

Veterans Affairs to the Department of the Air Force. The Agency’s failure to correctly apply

these regulations resulted in the denial of Petitioner’s due process rights.

5. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973

Text (Summary): This Act prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities

in federal employment. It requires federal agencies to provide reasonable accommodations for

the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability,

unless the agency can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship

on the operation of its program.

Relevance: While not the primary focus of the MSPB appeal being reviewed, the underlying

facts of Petitioner’s related EEO complaint involve the denial of a reasonable accommodation

for his disability. This context is relevant to understanding the full scope of the Agency’s actions

against Petitioner during the same time period as his protected whistleblowing activity.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioner, Camerron L. Bradberry, is a preference-eligible veteran and a former federal

employee under a Schedule A excepted service appointment. Prior to the events in question,

Petitioner was employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) in Denver, Colorado,

where he had completed his required service period.

On September 16, 2019, Petitioner transferred without a break in service to the position of

Human Resources Assistant (Military), GS-0203-06, with the Department of the Air Force

("Agency") at Buckley Air Force Base, Colorado. The Agency designated this appointment as

being subject to a two-year trial period.

During his employment with the Agency, Petitioner, an individual with a disability, alleges that he

was denied a reasonable accommodation that had been previously provided to him at the DVA.

On January 15, 2020, Petitioner made a protected disclosure to his supervisors via email,

detailing a workplace incident involving a coworker that he reasonably believed constituted an

abuse of authority and a violation of workplace conduct rules.

Less than one month later, on February 5, 2020, the Agency issued Petitioner a Notice of

Termination During Trial Period, effective February 13, 2020. The termination was processed

using the summary procedures for a probationary employee, thereby denying Petitioner the

procedural due process rights afforded to career employees under 5 U.S.C. Chapter 75.

Petitioner sought corrective action from the Office of Special Counsel, which terminated its

investigation and notified him of his right to file an Individual Right of Action (IRA) appeal with

the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

Petitioner filed a timely IRA appeal with the MSPB (Docket No. DE-1221-23-0108-W-1), arguing

that his termination was reprisal for his whistleblowing activity. He also argued that the Agency

had committed a procedural error by treating him as a probationary employee when his prior

federal service made him a career employee with full due process rights.

After a hearing, the MSPB Administrative Judge (AJ) issued an initial decision on August 10,

2023, denying the appeal. The AJ found that while Petitioner's disclosure was a contributing

factor in his termination, the Agency had proven by clear and convincing evidence under the

factors of Carr v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 185 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1999), that it would have taken the

same action absent the disclosure. In his analysis, the AJ assumed, for the sake of argument,

that Petitioner was not a probationary employee but did not adjudicate the due process

violation. The full Board denied Petitioner’s petition for review on August 27, 2024, making the

initial decision final.

Petitioner sought judicial review from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On April

10, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential decision (No. 2025-1112) affirming the

MSPB. The court found the MSPB’s weighing of the Carr factors was supported by substantial

evidence. A timely petition for rehearing en banc was denied on June 5, 2025.

Concurrently, Petitioner pursued an EEO complaint with the Agency based on disability

discrimination and reprisal. On June 19,2025, the Agency issued a Final Agency Decision

dismissing the complaint as untimely. That matter is currently on a separate appeal to the

EEOC's Office of Federal Operations.

This petition seeks review of the Federal Circuit’s decision affirming the denial of Petitioner's

whistleblower reprisal appeal.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

This petition presents a question of exceptional importance to the integrity of the federal civil

service and the efficacy of the Whistleblower Protection Act: Can an agency strip a tenured

career employee of their constitutionally protected due process rights by misclassifying them as

"probationary," and can that fundamental procedural violation then be dismissed as harmless by

lower courts analyzing a related claim of whistleblower reprisal? The Federal Circuit’s

nonprecedential decision, which affirms this outcome, sets a dangerous precedent that warrants

this Court's review.

I. The Federal Circuit Erred by Sanctioning the Deprivation of a Career Employee's Due

Process Rights.

The bedrock of the federal civil service is the principle that non-probationary employees have a

property interest in their employment, protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth

Amendment. This Court has long recognized that this property interest cannot be extinguished

without constitutionally adequate procedures. The Civil Service Reform Act and its implementing

regulations, specifically 5 C.F.R. Part 315, provide a clear framework for determining employee

status.

Petitioner, having completed prior federal service without a break, was a career employee under

these regulations. The Agency's action to terminate him using the summary procedures

reserved for a probationary employee was not a mere technical error; it was a fundamental

denial of due process. Petitioner was denied his statutory rights to a formal notice of charges,

the opportunity for an oral reply before a higher-level official, and full appeal rights to the Merit

Systems Protection Board (MSPB) on the merits of the charges.

The Federal Circuit, in affirming the MSPB’s decision, allowed this due process violation to

stand uncorrected. The lower court accepted the MSPB’s decision to merely "assume"

Petitioner's career status for the sake of a narrow whistleblower analysis, without ever

adjudicating the harm of the procedural violation itself. This creates a loophole that agencies

can exploit: by misclassifying an employee, an agency can develop a one-sided, unchallenged

record of alleged misconduct and then use that tainted record to defend against other claims,

such as whistleblower reprisal. This Court should grant certiorari to affirm that a tenured federal

employee's due process rights are not optional and that an agency's failure to provide them

constitutes a reversible error that cannot be ignored.

II. The Lower Courts' Analysis of the Whistleblower Claim is Fatally Tainted by the

Uncorrected Due Process Violation.

The Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) is rendered meaningless if an agency can retaliate

against a whistleblower while simultaneously stripping them of the procedural tools needed to

mount a defense. The Federal Circuit’s decision rested on its finding that the MSPB’s weighing

of the Carr factors was supported by "substantial evidence." However, it failed to recognize that

the "evidence" itself was a product of a fundamentally unfair and procedurally invalid process.

The Carr analysis requires a careful weighing of the strength of the agency’s evidence and its

motives. This analysis is impossible to conduct fairly when the employee was denied the very

procedures designed to test that evidence and expose improper motive. Denied an oral reply,

Petitioner could not confront his accusers before a deciding official. Denied a full hearing on the

merits of the charges, he could not use discovery and cross-examination to challenge the

agency’s narrative of his alleged performance deficiencies.

The agency's case against Petitioner was, therefore, developed in an echo chamber of its own

making. The Federal Circuit's deference to a record built upon such a profound procedural

violation is an error of law. It effectively holds that the protections of the WPA are weaker for

whistleblowers who are also victims of due process violations. This Court should grant the

petition to clarify that the evidentiary framework for whistleblower claims requires a procedurally

sound foundation, and that an agency cannot meet its high burden of proof by relying on

evidence gathered through a process that violated the employee's fundamental due process

rights.

The integrity of the merit system principles and the protections afforded to those who expose

waste, fraud, and abuse require nothing less.

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

CAMERRON L. BRADBERRY

8150 West 6th Place

Lakewood, CO 80214

(785) 438-0835

Petitioner, Pro Se

Date:.