Ricardo Irizarry, Assistant Area Port Director at San Juan, Puerto Rico, got in hot water with the agency when his female subordinate reported to higher-ups at Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that she had engaged in “consensual relationships” with Irizarry and other management officials. (Irizarry v. Department of Homeland Security (CAFC No. 2024-1872 (nonprecedential) 1/6/2026)
Irizarry was the number two official at the port and served as supervisor and manager to port employees. One of those employees reported to the agency that she had been in a consensual relationship with Irizarry as well as other managers. She was a subordinate within Irizarry’s chain of command. As it turns out, her spouse also worked under Irizarry, and he too accused Irizarry of misconduct. This led to an investigation, during which Irizarry admitted he had had a sexual relationship with a subordinate for some four years. He also admitted that they rendezvoused on site and while on duty and that he had used government phones to carry out his outside activities. The investigation found that the rumors were flying about Irizarry and his “reputation as someone who likes to ‘follow’ and ‘harass’ women, including subordinates in his chain of command.” (Opinion p. 3)
Not surprisingly, the agency proposed to remove Irizarry for charges of conduct unbecoming and misuse of government property. The deciding official decided to remove Irizarry. She took into account the “Douglas Factors” but found that his actions “demonstrated extremely poor judgment, adding that the agency lost “confidence in his ‘ability to act in accordance with the ethical and professional standards of CBP.” (P. 4)
Mr. Irizarry appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), and the Board’s administrative judge held a hearing, following which he ruled that the agency had proved its case, sustaining Irizarry’s removal.
The federal appeals court sustained the agency and MSPB. The court brushed aside Irizarry’s argument that there was no express agency rule prohibiting a consensual relationship with a subordinate and therefore he did nothing wrong and certainly did not deserve to be fired.
To bolster his argument, Irizarry pointed to the fact that the agency issued a new rule after the fact prohibiting fraternization with subordinates. Citing Cruz v. Department of Homeland Security, the court ruled that it was not unreasonable to remove a superior officer under such circumstances as in this present case. (Cruz involved the Area Port Director in San Juan.) As the court explained in Cruz, “common sense standards for assessing workplace-related conduct justified [Cruz’] removal.” (P. 6)
The court concluded that the MSPB’s finding that Irizarry’s “offenses raised serious questions as to his judgment and his understanding of the need to behave in a professional manner” is supported by substantial evidence. (P. 7)
