An earlier Suits & Sentences post regarding a ruling in the case pitting Gary Aguirre versus his former employers at the Securities and Exchange Commission was based on a misunderstanding of the judge's procedural decisions. Mr. Aguirre writes to state:

"(The story) gives the false impression to your readers that a judge has ruled on the core contention in my dispute with the SEC. You state, “The judge did, though, reject out of hand Aguirre's request for damages based on his firing.” The statement is utterly false. I made no request to the judge that he decide I was entitled to damages under the Due Process claim, nor did judge address that possibility, nor did the judge make such a ruling."

The complete Dec. 2 decision has the necessary detail, but this is how Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle stated her summing up:

"The Court will grant defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s due process claim based on his termination. The Court will stay plaintiff’s due process claim based on injury to his reputation, pending the outcome of his proceedings before the (Merit Systems Protection Board.) The Court will dismiss plaintiff’s Privacy Act requests made on May 27, 2008...(and) made on November 24, 2008. Finally, the Court will stay plaintiff’s claims for damages under the Privacy Act pending the resolution of his case before the MSPB."

Mr. Aguirre points out that that "the only relief sought under the Due Process Clause is a name clearing hearing" and not damages.

Suits & Sentences regrets the error.