Robin Marcato v. USAID ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •  United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
    Argued December 9, 2020             Decided August 24, 2021
    No. 19-1041
    ROBIN S. MARCATO,
    PETITIONER
    v.
    UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT,
    RESPONDENT
    MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,
    INTERVENOR
    On Petition for Review of an Order
    of the Merit Systems Protection Board
    Kathleen McClellan argued the cause for petitioner. With
    her on the briefs was Jesselyn A. Radack.
    Allison Kidd-Miller, Assistant Director, U.S. Department
    of Justice, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the
    brief were Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney
    General, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Director, and Isaac B.
    Rosenberg, Attorney.
    Tristan L. Leavitt, General Counsel, Merit Systems
    Protection Board, Katherine M. Smith, Deputy General
    Counsel, and Stephen W. Fung, Attorney, were on the brief for
    2
    intervenor Merit Systems Protection Board in support of
    respondent.
    Before: GARLAND, * PILLARD, and KATSAS, Circuit
    Judges.
    Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge KATSAS.
    KATSAS, Circuit Judge: A federal agency may defend an
    adverse personnel action taken against a whistleblower by
    showing that it would have taken the same action in the absence
    of any protected disclosures. In this case, the Merit Systems
    Protection Board found that the Office of the Inspector General
    (OIG) of the United States Agency for International
    Development (USAID) would have fired petitioner Robin
    Marcato for workplace misconduct in the absence of her
    protected disclosures. We conclude that substantial evidence
    supports this finding.
    I
    The Civil Service Reform Act permits federal employees
    to appeal certain adverse personnel actions, including removal
    from office, to the MSPB. 
    5 U.S.C. §§ 7512
    (1), 7513(d). To
    sustain a challenged action before the MSPB, the employing
    agency must show that the charged employee conduct
    occurred, 
    id.
     § 7701(c)(1)(B); that the adverse action was
    necessary to promote the efficiency of the service, id.
    § 7513(a); and that the penalty imposed was reasonable,
    Douglas v. Veterans Admin., 
    5 M.S.P.R. 280
    , 299–300 (1981).
    See, e.g., Bryant v. Nat’l Sci. Found., 
    105 F.3d 1414
    , 1416
    *
    Then-Judge Garland was a member of the panel when this case
    was submitted but did not participate in its final disposition. Judge
    Pillard and Judge Katsas have acted as a quorum for this opinion and
    judgment. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 46
    (d).
    3
    (Fed. Cir. 1997). The MSPB may not sustain an adverse action
    “based on any prohibited personnel practice described in
    section 2302(b).” 
    5 U.S.C. § 7701
    (c)(2)(B). As relevant here,
    section 2302(b) prohibits any adverse personnel action
    “because of” an employee’s “disclosure of information” about
    unlawful activity, gross agency mismanagement, or similar
    conduct. 
    Id.
     § 2302(b)(8)(A).
    The Whistleblower Protection Act permits any federal
    employee subjected to a personnel practice prohibited by
    section 2302(b)(8) to “seek corrective action” from the MSPB.
    
    5 U.S.C. § 1221
    (a). In such a case, the employee bears the
    burden to show that her protected disclosures were a
    “contributing factor in the personnel action.” 
    Id.
     § 1221(e)(1).
    The employee may discharge that burden through
    “circumstantial evidence,” including evidence that an official
    took the personnel action shortly after learning of the
    disclosure. Id. If the employee carries this burden, the agency
    can nonetheless prevail by showing “by clear and convincing
    evidence that it would have taken the same personnel action in
    the absence of such disclosure.” Id. § 1221(e)(2). Factors that
    the Federal Circuit has identified as pertinent to this defense
    include:
    the strength of the agency’s evidence in support of its
    personnel action; the existence and strength of any
    motive to retaliate on the part of the agency officials
    who were involved in the decision; and any evidence
    that the agency takes similar actions against
    employees who are not whistleblowers but who are
    otherwise similarly situated.
    Carr v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 
    185 F.3d 1318
    , 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
    This burden-shifting framework governs appeals to the MSPB
    under the Civil Service Reform Act, which can fairly be
    4
    described as a kind of “corrective action” for adverse personnel
    actions undertaken in retaliation for whistleblowing.
    Accordingly, on review of an MSPB decision under the CSRA,
    we must determine whether the MSPB correctly applied the
    Whistleblower Protection Act framework to factual findings
    supported by substantial evidence.
    A party aggrieved by an MSPB decision may petition a
    court of appeals for review. 
    5 U.S.C. § 7703
    (a)(1). Until 2012,
    the Federal Circuit had exclusive jurisdiction over such
    petitions. See 
    id.
     § 7703(b)(1)(A). Since then, the regional
    circuits have had concurrent jurisdiction over petitions
    challenging only the disposition of whistleblower-retaliation
    claims. See id. § 7703(b)(1)(B). Because we were given
    jurisdiction to review MSPB decisions only recently, we
    consult Federal Circuit precedent for guidance, as other
    regional circuits have done. See Acha v. USDA, 
    841 F.3d 878
    ,
    880 n.2 (10th Cir. 2016).
    II
    USAID administers the federal government’s foreign
    development assistance program. Hanson v. USAID, 
    372 F.3d 286
    , 289 (4th Cir. 2004). The OIG is the Agency’s oversight
    arm. Its components include an Office of Investigations, which
    conducts criminal and other investigations of grant recipients
    and others involved in the agency’s programs, and an Office of
    Management, which provides support services to the OIG. In
    2012, the OIG hired Marcato to the management office, where
    she worked as a management analyst.
    During her tenure at OIG, Marcato frequently alleged
    misconduct by its high-ranking officials, including Acting
    Inspector General Michael Carroll, Deputy Inspector General
    Catherine Trujillo, Chief of Staff Justin Brown, and Deputy
    Assistant Inspector General Lisa McClennon. Beginning in
    5
    2012, Marcato reported within the OIG that officials had
    doctored various audits and reports sent to Congress. In 2013,
    Marcato repeated those allegations to Senate staffers,
    prompting a critical letter from Senator Coburn and
    unfavorable media coverage in the Washington Post. In
    October 2014, Carroll withdrew his nomination to be the
    Senate-confirmed Inspector General, and he retired from the
    OIG a few months later.
    While routinely reporting the misdeeds of others, Marcato
    engaged in concerning conduct herself. In December 2014, she
    approached Rebecca Giacalone, an agent in the Office of
    Investigations, about an ongoing criminal probe on which
    Giacalone was working.          The investigation concerned
    International Relief and Development, Inc. (IRD), which was
    Marcato’s former employer and one of USAID’s largest grant
    recipients. Marcato identified potential witnesses, including
    former IRD employee Dawn Greensides. After Marcato told
    Giacalone that Greensides would feel uncomfortable
    cooperating, Giacalone asked Marcato to vouch for her to
    Greensides as a trustworthy investigator. Marcato proceeded
    to send Greensides an e-mail that went well beyond the scope
    of Giacalone’s request: Marcato identified the subject of the
    investigation, the name of a suspect, and the name of a
    cooperating witness, and she stated that the OIG was
    considering a subpoena for IRD files. No OIG employee
    reviewed the e-mail beforehand or learned of it until a year
    later.
    Marcato became increasingly preoccupied with the IRD
    probe. She would seek to discuss it with Giacalone several
    times daily.     Giacalone became uncomfortable because
    Marcato was not a trained investigator, and her visits were
    distracting. Giacalone relayed her concerns to her supervisors
    in the Office of Investigations, including McClennon.
    6
    McClennon passed on the concerns to Trujillo and Robert
    Ross, who supervised Marcato in the Office of Management.
    Trujillo and Ross then developed a protocol requiring Marcato
    to go through Ross if she wanted to speak to Giacalone or enter
    the Investigations workspace. In February 2015, Ross and
    Trujillo met with Marcato to explain the protocol. Marcato
    recorded the meeting on her cell phone, despite a USAID
    security policy barring the unauthorized use, in restricted
    workspace, of any device that can transmit audio or video.
    The protocol failed to dampen Marcato’s efforts to
    participate in the IRD investigation. Over the next month,
    Marcato e-mailed Giacalone three times to flag possible leads
    and to disparage the protocol as an “insulting waste of … time.”
    J.A. 83. In March 2015, the Office of Investigations disabled
    Marcato’s access to its suite, and Ross again instructed her to
    follow the protocol. Yet Marcato violated the protocol at least
    three more times in the next six months. On one occasion, she
    initiated a conversation with an investigator by standing on
    office furniture to speak over the top of a wall dividing the
    respective workspace of the Management and Investigations
    offices. On another occasion, she trailed someone into the
    Investigations suite, then walked past staff who tried to prevent
    her from entering.
    In October 2015, Ross proposed to reprimand Marcato for
    her repeated violations of the protocol. In response, Marcato
    attached her e-mail to Greensides, which prompted concern
    over its disclosure of sensitive information. Around this time,
    Trujillo learned that Marcato had recorded their February 2015
    meeting. According to Trujillo, newly confirmed Inspector
    General Ann Calvaresi Barr decided to investigate Marcato’s
    conduct, including her e-mail disclosure, cell phone recording,
    and failure to follow the communications protocol. To avoid
    any conflicts of interest, Calvaresi Barr arranged for the OIG
    7
    of the Department of Defense to conduct the investigation. In
    the formal, written request for assistance, Trujillo noted the
    “sensitivity” of the investigation given that Marcato “self-
    identified as a whistleblower” and had recently made
    disclosures to Congress of alleged misconduct by high-ranking
    USAID officials. J.A. 62. Trujillo requested DoD’s help to
    ensure that the allegations against Marcato were “appropriately
    investigated.” 
    Id.
    The ensuing investigation consumed over a year. In an
    interview, Marcato informed DoD investigators that, at the
    beginning of her February 2015 meeting with Ross and
    Trujillo, she told them that she would be recording the meeting
    with her cell phone, which she visibly placed on a table.
    Marcato made similar statements to the USAID security office.
    Ross and Trujillo both denied that Marcato told them she would
    be recording the meeting.
    The DoD OIG finished its probe in June 2017. Its report
    substantiated four instances of misconduct. First, Marcato
    improperly disclosed sensitive information about an ongoing
    investigation to Greensides.      Second, Marcato violated
    USAID’s security policy by recording the meeting with Ross
    and Trujillo on her cell phone. Third, Marcato made false
    statements claiming that she told Ross and Trujillo that she
    would be recording the meeting. Fourth, Marcato repeatedly
    violated the communications protocol.
    Debra Scott, Marcato’s direct supervisor at the time,
    reviewed the report and proposed that Marcato be removed
    based on these charges. Jason Carroll, 1 who had replaced Ross
    as the Assistant Inspector General for the Management Office,
    then removed Marcato. Scott outlined four charges matching
    the instances of misconduct substantiated by the DoD OIG,
    1
    No relation to former Acting IG Michael Carroll.
    8
    specifically noting that the disclosure to Greensides “could
    have jeopardized the integrity” of an ongoing criminal
    investigation and that “knowing falsification in any official
    investigation or inquiry strikes at the heart of the employee-
    employer relationship and OIG’s core mission.” J.A. 22.
    Carroll stated that his confidence in Marcato had been
    “irreparably damaged.” Id. at 11.
    Marcato appealed her removal to the MSPB. After a four-
    day evidentiary hearing, an administrative judge sustained the
    decision. He concluded that Marcato committed the charged
    conduct, that her removal promoted the effective functioning
    of the agency, and that the penalty of removal was reasonable.
    The judge then turned to the question of whistleblower
    retaliation. Based on circumstantial evidence, he found that
    retaliation was a contributing factor in Scott’s decision to
    propose removing Marcato and in Jason Carroll’s decision to
    remove her. But the judge then found, by clear and convincing
    evidence, that the OIG would have removed Marcato even in
    the absence of any protected disclosures.
    Marcato did not ask the full MSPB to review the judge’s
    decision, which became the Board’s final decision by operation
    of law. 
    5 C.F.R. § 1201.113
    . Because Marcato now contests
    only the decision on her retaliation claim, we have jurisdiction
    over her petition for review under 
    5 U.S.C. § 7703
    (b)(1)(B),
    which applies to the disposition of whistleblower-retaliation
    allegations raised either as stand-alone claims under the
    Whistleblower Protection Act or as affirmative defenses under
    the CSRA. See Baca v. Dep’t of the Army, 
    983 F.3d 1131
    , 1137
    (10th Cir. 2020) (noting that § 7703(b)(1)(B) “does not
    differentiate between whistleblower actions raised as direct
    claims and those raised as affirmative defenses”).
    9
    III
    Marcato disputes whether USAID proved by clear and
    convincing evidence that it would have removed her had she
    not made any protected disclosures. The clear-and-convincing
    standard requires “reasonable certainty of truth.” United States
    v. Montague, 
    40 F.3d 1251
    , 1255 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (cleaned up).
    We review for substantial evidence the administrative judge’s
    determination that USAID met its clear-and-convincing
    burden. See 
    5 U.S.C. § 7703
    (c)(3); Greenspan v. Dep’t of
    Veterans Affairs, 
    464 F.3d 1297
    , 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
    Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable
    mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
    Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 
    305 U.S. 197
    , 229 (1938). In
    reviewing the evidence, we will consider the factors set forth
    in Carr, 
    185 F.3d at 1323
    , as did the administrative judge.
    A
    The first Carr factor is “the strength of the agency’s
    evidence in support of its personnel action.” 
    185 F.3d at 1323
    .
    The stronger the evidence, the more likely the agency would
    have taken the personnel action. Here, the judge reasonably
    determined that Marcato’s removal was supported by “strong
    evidence” of significant workplace misconduct. J.A. 723.
    First, Marcato sent a highly inappropriate e-mail to
    Greensides, a potential witness in an ongoing criminal
    investigation. On its face, the e-mail discloses sensitive
    information about the investigation, including the subject of the
    investigation, the name of a suspect, the name of a cooperating
    witness, and information about a potential subpoena. OIG
    officials testified that these disclosures could have
    compromised the investigation. Marcato’s only response is
    that Giacalone asked her to send an e-mail to Greensides. But
    Giacalone asked Marcato only to vouch for her to Greensides
    10
    as a trustworthy investigator; Giacalone specifically denied
    authorizing Marcato to disclose the details of the investigation.
    The administrative judge plausibly found Giacalone’s
    testimony to be credible, and we cannot set aside that “virtually
    unreviewable” assessment. King v. HHS, 
    133 F.3d 1450
    , 1453
    (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Clark v. Dep’t of the Army, 
    997 F.2d 1466
    , 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1993)).
    Second, Marcato violated a USAID security policy by
    recording her February 2015 meeting with Trujillo and Ross on
    a cell phone. The policy prohibits using “devices which
    transmit audio or video” in restricted areas without the advance
    permission of the Agency’s security office. J.A. 428. The
    meeting was held in OIG workspace prominently marked as
    restricted, and it was undisputed that Marcato did not receive
    advance permission. Marcato objects that the USAID security
    office, in a February 2016 warning letter to her, stated that it
    could not determine whether she had violated the policy. But
    that was because Marcato refused to tell the security office
    “what type of device was used for these audio recordings.” Id.
    at 81. Marcato later admitted to recording the meeting on her
    cell phone, in testimony before the DoD investigators and the
    administrative judge.
    Third, the false-statements charge was amply supported.
    While under oath, Marcato told DoD investigators that she had
    announced to Trujillo and Ross that she would be recording the
    February 2015 meeting with her cell phone, which she visibly
    placed on a table. Marcato also made similar statements to the
    USAID security office. But after Trujillo and Ross testified to
    the contrary, Marcato claimed not to “remember the details of
    the meeting.” J.A. 619. And when asked to reconcile that
    position with her prior statements, she explained that she “said
    what was true to [her] at the time.” Id. at 620. The
    administrative judge found the testimony of Trujillo and Ross
    11
    to be more credible than Marcato’s, and we have no reason to
    second-guess that assessment. See Pope v. USPS, 
    114 F.3d 1144
    , 1149 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Marcato objects that Trujillo was
    biased and gave allegedly inconsistent testimony. But on the
    issue of the recording, Trujillo’s testimony was internally
    consistent and matched Ross’s testimony. Marcato further
    contends that her false statements were not chargeable because
    she did not intend to mislead the agency for private material
    gain. Marcato forfeited that argument by not raising it until her
    reply brief. Am. Wildlands v. Kempthorne, 
    530 F.3d 991
    , 1001
    (D.C. Cir. 2008). The argument is also meritless; the
    administrative judge could reasonably infer an intent to mislead
    from the circumstances, and preventing the imposition of
    discipline surely qualifies as a private gain.
    Fourth, Marcato repeatedly violated the communications
    protocol by initiating discussions with the Office of
    Investigations. Marcato highlights Ross’s testimony before the
    administrative judge that he disagreed with the protocol and did
    not think that Marcato needed to follow it. But Ross never
    suggested to Marcato that the protocol was optional. Rather,
    in the February 2015 meeting, Ross and Trujillo instructed
    Marcato to follow the protocol, and Ross’s notes document
    several later reminders. J.A. 89 (Mar. 12) (“I instructed Robin
    not to initiate any discussions with IG/I staff regarding their
    work.”); id. at 88 (Aug. 25) (same); id. at 85 (Sept. 22) (“I am
    directing you not to enter the Office of Investigations space
    unless authorized by me.”). And as the judge explained, Ross’s
    “disagreement” with the protocol did not justify Marcato’s
    “refusal to follow” her supervisors’ instructions. Id. at 714.
    B
    The second Carr factor is “the existence and strength of
    any motive to retaliate on the part of the agency officials who
    12
    were involved in the decision” under review. 
    185 F.3d at 1323
    .
    Those involved in the decision include the decisionmaker and
    “other agency officials who influenced the decision.”
    Whitmore v. DOL, 
    680 F.3d 1353
    , 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
    (quoting McCarthy v. Int’l Boundary & Water Comm., 
    116 M.S.P.R. 594
    , 613 (2011)).
    1
    Marcato contends that the administrative judge improperly
    required her to prove the second Carr factor. But the factors
    are “merely appropriate and pertinent considerations” in
    “determining whether the agency carries its burden of proving
    by clear and convincing evidence that the same action would
    have been taken absent the whistleblowing.” Whitmore, 
    680 F.3d at 1374
    . Here, the judge correctly stated the governing
    rule that, if the employee proves that protected activity was a
    “contributing factor” in the adverse personnel action at issue,
    “the agency must prove by clear and convincing evidence that
    it would have taken the same action even absent the disclosure
    or other protected activity.” J.A. 719; see 
    5 U.S.C. § 1221
    (e).
    Then, in applying the rule, the judge concluded that USAID
    “has shown by clear and convincing evidence that it would
    have taken the same personnel action in the absence of
    whistleblowing or protected activity.” J.A. 722. The judge
    summarized the motives and testimony of the DoD
    investigators and the USAID officials involved in Marcato’s
    removal in its analysis of the second Carr factor, and it
    weighed that evidence against evidence bearing on the other
    Carr factors—including what he characterized as “strong”
    evidence of significant misconduct. 
    Id. at 723
    . After doing so,
    the judge restated his conclusion: “I find that the agency has
    proven by clear and convincing evidence that it would have
    removed the appellant even in the absence of her disclosures.”
    13
    
    Id. at 726
    . This analysis correctly applied the burden-shifting
    framework of the Whistleblower Protection Act.
    Marcato highlights the judge’s statement, in addressing the
    second Carr factor, that she “failed to show retaliatory
    motive.” J.A. 724. But the judge had already found that
    Marcato’s protected activity was a “contributing factor” in the
    termination decision, based on “circumstantial evidence” that
    Debra Scott and Jason Carroll removed Marcato while they
    knew about at least some of her disclosures. 
    Id.
     at 720–22. In
    analyzing the second Carr factor, the judge made clear that
    there was no other evidence of retaliatory motive: Marcato’s
    disclosures involved neither Scott nor Jason Carroll; Scott
    testified about instances in which she had supported Marcato’s
    whistleblowing activity; and Carroll credibly testified that he
    made the decision to remove Marcato without any pressure
    from his OIG superiors. 
    Id.
     at 724–25. In context, we
    understand the judge to have concluded that there was no
    evidence of retaliatory motive beyond the circumstantial case
    based on knowledge and timing, which made the evidence of
    retaliation relatively weak compared to the strong evidence of
    misconduct. See Kewley v. HHS, 
    153 F.3d 1357
    , 1364–65
    (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“Once the agency presented its evidence in
    support of its charges of independent causation for the removal,
    [an employee must] rebut the agency’s evidence or risk a
    finding that the agency had successfully established its
    affirmative defense ….”). While the judge’s language on this
    point was perhaps imprecise, we have no doubt that he held
    USAID to its ultimate burden to prove by clear and convincing
    14
    evidence that it would have fired Marcato regardless of her
    disclosures.
    2
    The administrative judge reasonably assessed evidence
    about the motives of the officials involved in the decision to
    fire Marcato. As the judge explained, Marcato had made no
    allegations of wrongdoing against either the proposing official
    (Scott) or the removing official (Jason Carroll). Nor were Scott
    or Jason Carroll otherwise caught up in the congressional or
    media scrutiny that followed her disclosures. Moreover, the
    investigation leading to Marcato’s firing was done by an
    outside agency—the DoD OIG—and nothing suggested that its
    investigators “were influenced by retaliatory animus.” J.A.
    724. On review, Marcato does not even suggest such animus
    by Scott, Jason Carroll, or the DoD investigators.
    Marcato instead focuses on other USAID officials with an
    alleged motive to retaliate—Michael Carroll, Trujillo,
    McClennon, and Brown—but she provides no evidence that
    any of them influenced the removal decision. Michael Carroll
    retired before Marcato engaged in much of the misconduct
    investigated by DoD. Trujillo left the agency nine months
    before the removal decision and testified that she did not
    influence the DoD investigation or the USAID removal
    decision. McClennon never supervised Marcato and attested
    that she never discussed Marcato with Jason Carroll. Brown
    had no connection to Marcato beyond forwarding the DoD
    report to Scott and Jason Carroll, and he testified that he never
    discussed the substance of it with them. Scott and Jason Carroll
    corroborated the testimony of Trujillo, McClennon, and Brown
    on all of these points.
    Marcato primarily contends that USAID initiated the DoD
    investigation because of her protected activity. That assertion
    15
    has several problems. First, Marcato’s own misconduct—
    disclosing obviously sensitive information about an important,
    ongoing criminal investigation to a prospective witness—
    provided ample basis for the investigation. Second, according
    to Trujillo, the investigation was ordered not by Trujillo, as
    Marcato contends, but by Calvaresi Barr, whom Marcato does
    not allege to harbor retaliatory motives. Third, the proposed
    reprimand leading to the discovery of Marcato’s unauthorized
    disclosures was issued by Ross, whom Marcato describes as
    her ally within USAID. Marcato stresses that USAID
    outsourced the investigation to DoD because of her
    whistleblower status. But she fails to explain why enlisting the
    help of an outside agency to investigate serious charges, rather
    than conducting the investigation through in-house
    investigators who might more readily be perceived to have an
    interest in its outcome, should count against USAID here.
    Alternatively, Marcato invokes what she describes as
    Trujillo’s retaliatory decision to devise the protocol and impose
    it on her over Ross’s objection. The governing statute prohibits
    any “personnel action” taken “because of” protected
    whistleblowing activity. 
    5 U.S.C. § 2302
    (b)(8). And the
    governing proof scheme makes the agency liable if the
    prohibited consideration was a “contributing factor” in the
    challenged action, unless the agency shows that it “would
    have” taken the same action anyway. 
    Id.
     § 1221(e). The
    Supreme Court construed a similar scheme prohibiting adverse
    employment actions because of the employee’s military service
    in Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 
    562 U.S. 411
     (2011). Invoking
    background principles of proximate cause and agency law, the
    Court held that an employer is liable if one of its agents intends
    to cause the adverse employment action, acts for the prohibited
    reason, and is a proximate cause of the adverse action. See 
    id.
    at 419–21. So, for example, an employer may be liable if one
    of its employees, for prohibited reasons, successfully persuades
    16
    a neutral decisionmaker to terminate another employee. See 
    id.
    at 413–16.
    This case does not fit that model. Marcato’s alternative
    theory posits that the retaliatory February 2015 protocol caused
    Marcato’s ensuing violations of it, which caused Ross to issue
    his proposed reprimand, which caused Marcato to reveal her
    past misconduct disclosing sensitive information, which
    caused the DoD OIG investigation, which caused her
    September 2017 removal. But the protocol merely required
    Marcato to obtain permission from her supervisor before
    straying outside her lane in the management office; that kind of
    modest restriction does not plausibly reflect an intent to
    orchestrate an ultimate termination. Moreover, the protocol
    was temporally and causally remote from the removal,
    separated by Marcato’s intervening decisions (1) to provoke
    repeated confrontations rather than asking Ross to approve her
    continued contact with Giacalone and (2) to reveal evidence of
    significant, previously unknown misconduct regarding her
    unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information. Given the
    length of this chain, and the unforeseeable twists and turns
    within it, the imposition of the protocol cannot be considered a
    proximate cause of the termination decision. See, e.g., Anza v.
    Ideal Steel Supply Corp., 
    547 U.S. 451
    , 457 (2006) (proximate
    cause demands “some direct relation between the injury
    asserted and the injurious conduct alleged” (quoting Holmes v.
    Sec. Invs. Prot. Corp., 
    503 U.S. 258
    , 268 (1992)).
    For these reasons, the administrative judge permissibly
    declined to put much weight on either the decision to impose
    17
    the communications protocol on Marcato or the decision to
    investigate her through DoD.
    C
    The third Carr factor considers whether the agency has
    taken “similar actions against employees who are not
    whistleblowers but who are otherwise similarly situated.” 
    185 F.3d at 1323
    .
    The administrative judge reasonably found this factor to
    favor USAID. Its Table of Offenses and Penalties lists both
    making a false statement and violating a security regulation as
    removable offenses. Moreover, a human-resources official for
    USAID OIG testified that several employees who had made
    false statements were removed or resigned in lieu of removal,
    and the official did not recall that any of them were
    whistleblowers.     Marcato presents examples of non-
    whistleblowers who were not punished for misconduct, but
    none of them was similarly situated to her.
    IV
    After reasonably weighing the Carr factors, the
    administrative judge concluded that USAID met its burden to
    show, by clear and convincing evidence, that it would have
    fired Marcato regardless of her protected activity. Because
    substantial evidence supports the judge’s decision, we deny the
    petition for review.
    So ordered.