The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed a lower court's dismissal of a Title VII employment discrimination lawsuit filed by former FBI employee Bernardo Matias Perez against Attorney General Pamela J. Bondi and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Matheson, Carson, and Federico, issued their order and judgment on Jan. 12, 2026, in the case *Perez v. Bondi* (10th Cir. 2026). The court exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and unanimously affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Perez, who worked for the FBI until his retirement, brought the employment discrimination suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The case originated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, where it was assigned case number 1:23-CV-00698-DHU-KK.
The Tenth Circuit panel determined that oral argument would not materially assist in resolving the appeal, leading them to decide the case based solely on the briefs and appellate record. This procedural decision reflects the court's assessment that the legal issues presented were sufficiently clear from the written submissions to render oral advocacy unnecessary.
The appeals court's order specifically notes that the decision is not binding precedent, except under the limited doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. However, the ruling may be cited for its persuasive value in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and Tenth Circuit Rule 32.1, which govern the citation of unpublished opinions.
Title VII cases against federal agencies like the FBI face unique procedural requirements and substantive challenges. Federal employees must typically exhaust administrative remedies through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission before filing suit in federal court. The statute provides protections against discrimination in hiring, firing, promotion, compensation, and other terms and conditions of employment.
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint's allegations. To survive such a motion, a plaintiff must plead enough factual matter to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Courts accept all factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion but need not accept legal conclusions or threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action.
The case highlights the ongoing challenges faced by federal employees who believe they have experienced workplace discrimination. While Title VII provides important protections, successfully litigating discrimination claims requires meeting specific pleading standards and procedural requirements that can prove difficult to navigate.
The involvement of Attorney General Pamela Bondi as the named defendant reflects the standard practice in federal employment litigation, where the head of the relevant agency is typically sued in their official capacity rather than individual supervisors or managers. This approach ensures that any potential relief runs against the federal government as an institution rather than individual employees.
The District of New Mexico, where the case originated, handles a variety of federal employment disputes given the significant federal presence in the state, including various law enforcement agencies, national laboratories, and military installations. Federal employment discrimination cases often involve complex factual scenarios and require careful legal analysis of workplace policies and practices.
The Tenth Circuit's jurisdiction covers Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming, as well as portions of Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The court regularly handles appeals involving federal employment law, civil rights, and administrative agency decisions.
While the specific factual allegations underlying Perez's discrimination claim are not detailed in the available court documents, the case's dismissal at the pleading stage suggests that the district court found the complaint failed to meet federal notice pleading requirements or adequately allege the elements necessary for a Title VII claim.
The ruling represents another instance where federal courts have applied stringent pleading standards to employment discrimination cases, requiring plaintiffs to provide sufficient factual detail to make their claims plausible rather than merely possible.
For federal employees considering discrimination claims, the case underscores the importance of careful legal preparation and thorough factual development before filing suit. The dismissal also highlights the value of experienced legal counsel familiar with the specific requirements of federal employment law and Title VII litigation.
The case concluded at the appellate level with the Tenth Circuit's affirmance, though the specific reasoning behind both courts' decisions would require examination of the full opinion and underlying district court order to fully understand the legal basis for dismissal.