Payne v. Salazar, arose out of an Equal Opportunity Employment (EEO) suit that Cassandra Payne filed against the United States Department of the Interior, her employer. Ms. Payne was employed as a tractor operator in Rock Creek Park in Washington, DC. While on the job, a bee stung Ms. Payne; and she almost died from the resulting allergic reaction. When Ms. Payne returned to work, the Department of the Interior reassigned her to indoor work in the Nature Center. However, Ms. Payne's reassignment forced her to work Wednesday through Sunday as opposed to her previous schedule of Monday through Friday. Ms. Payne is devoutly religious, and she objected to the new assignment because it prevented her from attending church and Bible study on the weekends.

In September, 2004, Ms. Payne filed an EEO Complaint alleging religious discrimination. Later, Ms. Payne amended her Complaint to include allegations of what she deemed to be retaliatory action taken by her boss for filing the Complaint. Ms. Payne alleged that her boss forbade her from eating with her coworkers and gave her a minute-by-minute work schedule.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found that the Department of the Interior was responsible for discriminating against Ms. Payne's religious activities, however, the ALJ found that the Department did not take retaliatory action for Ms. Payne's original lawsuit. Ms. Payne appealed the latter finding, but not the former. As a result, the U.S. District Court dismissed Ms. Payne's appeal for failure to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. The court held that it only had the authority to review the entire Complaint on appeal and not individual causes of action. Ms. Payne appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the lower court and held that Ms. Payne had the right to appeal a portion of the judgment without appealing the entire judgment. The Court of Appeals interpreted the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c), which states that the U.S. District Court can hear appeals of administrative cases de novo. The government argued that de novo meant that the court had to hear the entire Complaint anew. The Court of Appeals disagreed and held that de novo only refers to the manner in which the court must hear appeals, i.e. that the court should consider the evidence anew and not give the ALJ deference. The Court of Appeals held that de novo did not refer to the form of the claim, i.e. that the entire Complaint had to be reviewed as one.