DECISION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Appellant Antoine Boddie filed a claim against the Architect of the Capitol, alleging wrongful termination under the Congressional Accountability Act, 2 U.S.C. 1317. The hearing officer dismissed the complaint after Appellant was sanctioned and prohibited from presenting any evidence at the hearing. Appellant filed a petition for review of the hearing officer’s decision. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the decision of the hearing officer.
I. Background
On January 30, 2006, Antoine Boddie (“Appellant” or “Boddie”) filed a complaint with the Office of Compliance (“Office”), after having completed both the counseling and mediation requirements of the Office’s Procedural Rules. The complaint, filed against the Architect of the Capitol (“AOC” or “Architect”), alleged that Appellant was wrongfully terminated but did not refer to any violations of the Congressional Accountability Act, 2 U.S.C. 1317.
On February 6, 2006, Hearing Office Warren R. King issued a Notice of Pre-hearing Conference, advising the parties that they must attend the conference in person at the Office of Compliance on February 14, 2006, at 1:00 p.m. Without explanation, Boddie requested that the pre-hearing conference be rescheduled from this date. Hearing Officer King granted the request and rescheduled the pre-hearing conference for February 22, 2006. Again at Boddie’s request, the pre-hearing conference was rescheduled for March 1, 2006.
On February 7, the AOC submitted a notice to depose Appellant on February 21, 2006 at 9:30 a.m., requesting that Appellant bring certain documents to the deposition. Appellant failed to appear at the deposition on February 21, 2006.
At the pre-hearing conference on March 1, 2006, Hearing Officer King explained to Appellant his rights and responsibilities regarding discovery: that he had a right to obtain information from the AOC, and that the AOC had a right to obtain information from Appellant; and that Appellant had to attend the deposition, answer the questions posed by the AOC (unless they implicated Appellant in criminal activity), and provide documentation to the AOC. Appellant stated that he understood his responsibility and agreed to comply with the discovery request.
