Drake v. Agency for International Development

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, it was reasonable for the appellant to believe that he had disclosed that his colleagues violated agency policy by being intoxicated while on duty
• determining whether an appellant has a reasonable belief that a law, rule, or regulation was violated turns on the facts of a particular case
• reversing Board’s finding that 8 No. 19-2239 employee’s disclosure was not protected because it did not definitively show violation of law
• reversing Board’s finding that 8 No. 19-2239 employee’s disclosure was not protected because it did not definitively show violation of law
• reversing Board’s finding that em- ployee’s disclosure was not protected because it did not de- finitively show violation of law
• reversing Board’s finding that em- ployee’s disclosure was not protected because it did not de- finitively show violation of law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).