Bloom v. Army

3 Citing cases

  1. Bloom v. Mchugh

    Civil Action 05-1804 (RCL) (D.D.C. Dec. 6, 2011)

    Defs.' Mem. at 5-6. They argue that Count IV is duplicative of claims that Bloom raised before the Federal Circuit in 2007, see Bloom v. Dep't of the Army, 245 F. App'x 953 (Fed. Cir. 2007), as well as those presented to this Court in Bloom v. Geren. Defs.' Mem. at 5-6. Bloom does not address the Federal Circuit appeal, but argues that Count IV is "distinctly different" from the claims she raised in Bloom v. Geren. Pl.'s Mot. to Dismiss Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss ( "Pl.'s Opp'n") at 3.

  2. Bloom v. McHugh

    828 F. Supp. 2d 43 (D.D.C. 2011)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that a manager's refusal to change an employee's job title to a “more distinguished or prestigious” title after a reassignment “plausibly suggests” an adverse action

    Defs.' Mem. at 5–6. They argue that Count IV is duplicative of claims that Bloom raised before the Federal Circuit in 2007, see Bloom v. Dep't of the Army, 245 Fed.Appx. 953 (Fed.Cir.2007), as well as those presented to this Court in Bloom v. Geren. Defs.' Mem. at 5–6. Bloom does not address the Federal Circuit appeal, but argues that Count IV is “distinctly different” from the claims she raised in Bloom v. Geren. Pl.'s Mot. to Dismiss Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss (“Pl.'s Opp'n”) at 3.

  3. Diefenderfer v. Peters

    C08-958Z (W.D. Wash. Jun. 29, 2009)   Cited 9 times
    Finding that raising constructive discharge issue orally at EEOC hearing is a "delayed and informal method of presentation of a claim does not fulfill the statutory filing requirement"

    In the alternative, Plaintiff's appeal to the MSPB did not constitute a "mixed case appeal" because the MSPB declined jurisdiction over Plaintiff's discrimination claims. See id. This Court does not have jurisdiction to review the MSPB's handling of Plaintiff's IRA appeal. See Bloom v. Dep't of Army, 245 Fed. Appx. 953, 955 (9th Cir. 2007); 5 U.S.C. § 1221(h)(2); 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1). The Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's whistleblowing claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.