civil action if she was “aggrieved” by the final decision of the agency. Hodge filed suit in district court, seeking a declaration that the defendants’ conduct was unlawful, additional compensatory damages, and attorney’s fees. The relief requested demonstrates that she was seeking de novo review in the district court. Indeed, in the district court, Hodge admitted that she was seeking a trial de novo. “[W]hen a federal employee comes to court to challenge, in whole or in part, the administrative disposition of his or her discrimination claims, the court must consider those claims de novo, and is not bound by the results of the administrative process.... ” (William) Morris v. Rumsfeld, 420 F.3d 287, 294 (3d Cir.2005); see also Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 421 (4th Cir.2006) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, by seeking de novo review in
holding that a federal employee cannot bring a civil action placing only the allegedly insufficient administrative remedy at issuethe employee must also place the finding of discrimination at issue holding that the federal action at issue must be authorized holding that the employers failure to interact with the employee does not preclude the employee from losing on summary judgment because the employee must still prove that a reasonable accommodation could have been made holding that federal employee cannot file for damages against supervisor for an unconstitutional adverse personnel action when congress has provided adequate administrative remedy holding that an atwill employee may bring a cause of action under section 1981