Further, the Court sees no cognizable hardship to either Dr. Nicholas or Dr. Smith resulting from any delay in the Court's review of their claims. The ongoing administrative investigation of Dr. Nicholas' complaint appears to conflict with case law holding that federal contractors are outside of the scope of the CSRA. SeeThompson v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 421 F.3d 1336, 1338–39 (Fed.Cir.2005) (reasoning that an employee of an independent government contractor does not necessarily fall under the CSRA); Navab–Safavi v. Broad. Bd. of Governors, 650 F.Supp.2d 40, 67 n. 14 (D.D.C.2009) (agreeing that “because plaintiff is a contractor and not an employee, the [CSRA] has no application” (internal citations omitted)), aff'd sub nom.Navab–Safavi v. Glassman, 637 F.3d 311 (D.C.Cir.2011). The plaintiffs understand that Dr. Smith—even if he is not an employee under the CSRA—should first attempt to exhaust possible administrative remedies, because they ask the Court to dismiss claims relevant to him “without prejudice” so that they can be re-plead if there is a “final decision by the [Merit Systems Protection Board] dismissing Dr. Smith's termination claim on jurisdictional grounds.”

Further, the Court sees no cognizable hardship to either Dr. Nicholas or Dr. Smith resulting from any delay in the Court's review of their claims. The ongoing administrative investigation of Dr. Nicholas' complaint appears to conflict with case law holding that federal contractors are outside of the scope of the CSRA. SeeThompson v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 421 F.3d 1336, 1338–39 (Fed.Cir.2005) (reasoning that an employee of an independent government contractor does not necessarily fall under the CSRA); Navab–Safavi v. Broad. Bd. of Governors, 650 F.Supp.2d 40, 67 n. 14 (D.D.C.2009) (agreeing that “because plaintiff is a contractor and not an employee, the [CSRA] has no application” (internal citations omitted)), aff'd sub nom.Navab–Safavi v. Glassman, 637 F.3d 311 (D.C.Cir.2011). The plaintiffs understand that Dr. Smith—even if he is not an employee under the CSRA—should first attempt to exhaust possible administrative remedies, because they ask the Court to dismiss claims relevant to him “without prejudice” so that they can be re-plead if there is a “final decision by the [Merit Systems Protection Board] dismissing Dr. Smith's termination claim on jurisdictional grounds.”

Id. at *10. This conclusion notwithstanding, it is unclear whether a contractor can be properly viewed as falling within the ambit of the CSRA.See Thompson v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 421 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (holding that a contract employee did not qualify as an "employee" under the CSRA). The issue need not be resolved, however, since plaintiff's claim is precluded by the FTCA if he was a contractor.

In other, analogous contexts, federal courts have held that private, government contract employees are not entitled to the employment benefits enjoyed by Civil Service employees. See Thompson v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 421 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (government contract employee not an "applicant for employment" within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 7701); Dangfeng Shen Ho v. United States, 49 Fed. Cl. 96 (Fed. Cl. 2001) (contractor not entitled to the protections of the Whistleblower Protection Act , 5 U.S.C. § 1221(a)); Quarles v. Colorado Sec. Agency, Inc., 843 F. 2d 557 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (rejecting claim that private contractor employee was "essentially" a civil service employee for purposes of Civil Service Reform Act protections, 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)(A)(i)). In short, there appears to be no support in case law for the Plaintiff's "de facto employer" theory under Section 525(a).

Plaintiff's application for a public trust clearance does not establish plaintiff as a government employee or applicant for government employment. See Thompson v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 421 F.3d 1336, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (dismissing for lack of jurisdiction a claim a non-government employee brought for a denial of security clearance before the Merit System Protection Board on the ground an employee of a private government contractor is neither a government employee or applicant for government employment). Plaintiff's employment dispute is related to the recission of an employment offer from a private company, and the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over suits against private parties.