DECISION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
This case is before the Board of Directors (“Board”) through a petition for review filed by Thomas J. Devlin (“Petitioner” or “Devlin”). Devlin filed a claim of retaliation against the Office of the Architect of the Capitol (“AOC” or “Respondent”), alleging violation of Section 207(a) of the Congressional Accountability Act (“CAA”) when he was not selected for a vacant position for which he applied. The hearing officer dismissed the complaint on the day of the hearing, as Petitioner refused to present any evidence in support of his complaint. For the reasons set forth below, the Board affirms the decision of the hearing officer.
I. Background
In 2005, Petitioner applied for the position of Building Services Supervisor with the AOC. On June 20, 2005, Petitioner learned that he was rated “qualified” but not “highly qualified” for the position, and his application was not forwarded to the selecting committee for further consideration. Another candidate was selected for the position, and Devlin initiated a claim with the Office of Compliance (“Office”) for the non-selection, alleging hostile work environment and retaliation.
On the day of the hearing on Petitioner’s complaint, the hearing officer denied the Petitioner’s request for certain discovery. The hearing officer viewed these documents in camera and determined that the material contained therein was neither relevant to Petitioner’s claims, nor would it lead to relevant evidence in Petitioner’s claims. Based on the hearing officer’s discovery ruling, Petitioner refused to call witnesses or put on any evidence at the hearing, and the hearing officer dismissed the complaint.
Petitioner timely filed a petition for review, alleging that the hearing officer abused her discretion by dismissing his claim for lack of prosecution. In addition, Petitioner alleged that the hearing officer abused her discretion by denying his aforementioned discovery request. Specifically, Petitioner argued that the hearing officer erroneously substituted her judgment for his by addressing an issue of relevancy by means of an in camera inspection of the documents requested.
