Dillon v. Department of Justice, Federal Circuit

Gregory Dillon was an attorney who worked as an asylum officer at the INS office in San Francisco. Prior to joining the INS, he had extensive experience with asylum law while in private practice. When an asylum officer makes a decision in a case, it must be approved by a supervisor. If there are disagreements, there are mechanisms by which the case can be reviewed by others, including INS Headquarters, if necessary. In some cases, these disagreements are prompted by factual disputes, while in others the source of the disagreement is differences in how asylum law should be interpreted and applied.

Dillon found there to be significant conflicts between INS policy and Ninth Circuit rulings. However, rather than resolve his disagreements with supervisors, on several occasions he refused to abide by their decisions. Just before the end of his first year of employment, at which point his one-year probationary status would have terminated, Dillon was fired. He then filed a complaint claiming that he was fired in retaliation for engaging in protected whistleblowing activity, specifically four instances in which he wrote letters to supervisors complaining about the application of asylum law.

After a hearing, an administrative law judge denied Dillon’s complaint, finding that disagreements over the application of law are not the sort of disclosures the government sought to protect in enacting laws to protect whistleblowers. The judge also found that given Dillon’s pattern of disagreements and refusal to resolve them using procedures in place, he would likely have been terminated anyway. Dillon then appealed.

The Federal Circuit found that denial of Dillon’s complaint was not an abuse of discretion, as ample evidence supported the INS’s decision to terminate him.

The opinion is not available online.