In the Senate of the United States,
October 8, 1999.
Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representa-
tives (H.R. 858) entitled ‘‘An Act to amend title 11, District
of Columbia Code, to extend coverage under the whistleblower
protection provisions of the District of Columbia Comprehen-
sive Merit Personnel Act of 1978 to personnel of the courts
of the District of Columbia.’’, do pass with the following
AMENDMENTS:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘District of Columbia
Court Employees Act of 1999’’.
SEC. 2. COMMUNICATIONS WITH CONGRESS BY DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA COURTS PERSONNEL.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 17 of title
11, District of Columbia Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following new section:
HR 858 EAS
‘‘§ 11–1733. Court personnel communications with
Congress
‘‘(a) In this section, the term—
‘‘(1) ‘Congress’ means the United States Congress
and includes any member, employee, or agent of Con-
gress; and
‘‘(2) ‘District of Columbia court’ means the Su-
perior Court of the District of Columbia and the Dis-
trict of Columbia Court of Appeals.
‘‘(b) Nonjudicial employees of the District of Columbia
court shall be treated as employees of the Federal Govern-
ment solely for purposes of section 7211 of title 5, United
States Code (relating to employees’ right to petition Con-
gress).
‘‘(c)(1) An employee or former employee may file a
civil action in the United States District Court for the Dis-
trict of Columbia for relief of a violation of subsection (b),
if—
‘‘(A) the employee or former employee reasonably
believes that such a violation occurred;
‘‘(B) the employee or former employee files a
grievance relating to such violation with the Joint
Committee on Judicial Administration of the District
of Columbia not later than 270 days after the viola-
tion occurred;
‘‘(C) the Joint Committee—
HR 858 EAS
‘‘(i) makes a final decision; or
‘‘(ii) makes no decision within 60 days
after the filing of the grievance; and
‘‘(D) the employee or former employee files such
civil action not later than 1 year after the date of the
violation.
‘‘(2) Relief in an action filed under paragraph (1)
may include—
‘‘(A) an injunction to restrain continued viola-
tion of this section;
‘‘(B) rescission of a retaliatory action;
‘‘(C) the reinstatement of the employee or former
employee to the same position held before the retalia-
tory action, or to an equivalent position;
‘‘(D) the reinstatement of the employee’s or
former employee’s full fringe benefits and seniority
rights;
‘‘(E) compensation for lost wages and benefits;
and
‘‘(F) the payment by the District of Columbia
court of the employee’s or former employee’s reason-
able costs and attorney fees, if the employee or former
employee is the prevailing party.
‘‘(d) The filing of a civil action in accordance with
this section shall constitute the employee’s or former em-
HR 858 EAS
ployee’s exclusive remedy under the laws of the United
States or the District of Columbia for violation of this sec-
tion.
‘‘(e) The District of Columbia court shall conspicu-
ously display notices of an employee’s protections and obli-
gations under this section, and shall use other appropriate
means to keep all employees informed of such protections
and obligations.’’.
(b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The
table of sections for subchapter II of chapter 17 of title 11,
District of Columbia Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following new item:
‘‘11–1733. Court personnel communications with Congress.’’.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by section 2 shall take effect
as if included in the enactment of title XI of the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997.
Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘An Act to amend
chapter 17 of title 11, District of Columbia Code, to pro-
vide for personnel protection for District of Columbia
court employees.’’.
Attest:
Secretary.