Source: https://www.zuckermanlaw.com/whistleblower-protection-act-individual-right-action-appeals/
Timestamp: 2020-07-14 03:40:32
Document Index: 330182900

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1214', '§ 1201', '§ 2302', '§ 2302', '§ 2302', '§ 1221', '§ 1214', '§ 1214']

Whistleblower Protection Act Individual Right of Action Appeals | Zuckerman Law
Home > Whistleblower Protection Act Individual Right of Action Appeals
What is Required to Prove a Violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act?
To prove whistleblower retaliation under the WPA, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8), a whistleblower must establish the following by preponderant evidence:
If you are seeking representation in a Whistleblower Protection Act case, call us at 202-262-8959.
Download our guide to the Whistleblower Protection Act:
is made during the employee’s normal course of duties, provided the employee can show that the personnel action was taken “in reprisal for” the disclosure.
What options are available to pursue a Whistleblower Protection Act Case?
The employee may file a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC). If OSC finds that the employee suffered retaliation, then it reports its findings to the MSPB and can petition the Board, on behalf of the employee, to correct the agency’s retaliatory action.
It is important for employees to know that they may choose only one of the following options when they want to challenge an adverse action that:
The MSPB is a quasi-judicial agency that adjudicates employee appeals and provides independent review and due process for employees and agencies.
What is an Individual Right of Action Appeal?
There are two ways in which an employee can bring an IRA appeal at the MSPB: 1) if OSC does not seek corrective action within 120 days of the filing of the complaint; or 2) if OSC closes its investigation of the complaint, the complainant has 65 days from the date of the written notice, or 60 days from the date of receipt of the notice, to file an IRA appeal. 5 U.S.C. § 1214(a)(3). The regulation incorporates the presumption of 5 C.F.R. § 1201.4(l) that a letter is received 5 days after mailing as applicable to the 60-day deadline for filing specified in the statute.
Prior to the enactment of the WPEA, the IRA appeal option was available only for § 2302(b)(8) claims. The WPEA expanded IRA appeals to cases brought under the following provisions of § 2302(b)(9):
2302(b)(9)(A)(i) – exercising any appeal, complaint, or grievance right granted by any law, rule, or regulation with regard to remedying a violation of paragraph (8);
2302(b)(9)(B) – testifying for or otherwise lawfully assisting any individual in the exercise of any appeal, complaint, or grievance right granted by any law, rule, or regulation;
2302(b)(9)(C) – cooperating with or disclosing information to the Inspector General of an agency, or the Special Counsel; and
2302(b)(9)(D) – refusing to obey an order that would require the individual to violate a law.
The IRA appeal option is not available for claims brought under § 2302(b)(9)(A)(ii), i.e., exercising any appeal, complaint, or grievance right granted by any law, rule, or regulation other than with regard to remedying a violation of paragraph (8).
In an IRA appeal, the Board may consider only the charges of whistleblowing that the appellant raised before OSC, i.e., the appellant must prove exhaustion of administrative remedies. Therefore, if the complainant is subjected to additional retaliation after filing an initial complaint with OSC, it is critical to document efforts to supplement the initial complaint.
An AJ’s inquiry into exhaustion of administrative remedies is limited to identifying (1) the whistleblowing disclosures and (2) the personnel actions that the appellant raised before OSC. The appellant must “give the [OSC] sufficient basis to pursue an investigation which might have led to corrective action.” Ward v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 981 F.2d 521, 526 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing Knollenberg v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 953 F.2d 623, 626 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).
IRA appeals are reviewed de novo, i.e., the IRA appeal must be viewed independently from OSC’s decision to close the complaint. Section 1221(f) of title 5, United States Code, expressly states: “[A] decision to terminate an investigation under subchapter II may not be considered in any action or other proceeding under this section.” 5 U.S.C. § 1221(f) (emphasis added). Section 1214 contains a similar prohibition:
5 U.S.C. § 1214(a)(3) (emphasis added). Under this statutory scheme, OSC’s internal decisions regarding an appellant’s complaint have no legal relevance to whether he or she may proceed with an IRA appeal. Congress took pains to protect OSC’s internal deliberations regarding the disposition of a complaint from Board review “to ensure that a whistleblower is not ‘penalized’ or ‘prejudiced’ in any way by OSC’s decision not to pursue a case.” Costin v. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 64 M.S.P.R. 517, 531 (1994). The MSPB can only order an appellant to produce OSC’s determination letter if the AJ explains why the letter is necessary and provides the opportunity to consent. See 5 U.S.C. § 1214(a)(2)(B); Bloom v. Dep’t of Army, 101 M.S.P.R. 79, 84 (2006).
What is required to prove jurisdiction in an IRA appeal?
An IRA appellant must show exhaustion of administrative remedies and make non-frivolous allegations that the appellant made a protected disclosure that was a contributing factor to the personnel action taken or proposed. Recently the Federal Circuit clarified that at the pleading stage, a MSPB AJ should not weight the evidence:
This court has made clear that the MSPB must “separate the issue of jurisdiction from that of the merits of a petitioner’s case.” Spencer v. Dep’t of the Navy, 327 F.3d 1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). And on several occasions, we have identified instances where the MSPB did not meet this requirement in the past. See id. We reiterate that at the jurisdictional stage, a petitioner need only assert non-frivolous allegations—allegations that are not “vague, conclusory, or facially insufficient,” and that the petitioner “reasonably believe[s]” to be true—of a protected disclosure that was a contributing factor to a reprisal. Johnston v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 518 F.3d 905, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A petitioner’s credibility including, as in this case, consideration of affidavits submitted by an allegedly retaliatory supervisor claiming no knowledge of the petitioner’s protected disclosure or motivation to retaliate, “relate[s] to the merits of [the] claim.” Id. at 911, 912 n.3; see J.A. 6 (improperly considering affidavit of Mr. Piccolo’s supervisor at the jurisdictional stage). Non-frivolous allegations suffice at the jurisdictional stage precisely because, as here, the petitioner may not have access to all relevant documents or have been provided an opportunity to conduct discovery. See Johnston, 518 F.3d at 912; see Pet’r’s Original Br. 11-15, ECF No. 9 (detailing outstanding requests under the Freedom of Information Act). We have also required that petitioners in IRA appeals be provided “notice of deficiencies before a claim is finally dismissed” and “an opportunity to cure” their pleadings where specific details are “readily available.” Cahill v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 821 F.3d 1370, 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Piccolo v. Merit Systems Protection Board, No. 2016-2374 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
What damages are available under the Whistleblower Protection Act?
Refused to obey an order that would require the employee to violate a law
Hiring Experienced Whistleblower Protection Act Lawyers
What does the Whistleblower Protection Act Prohibit?
What remedies or damages are available under the Whistleblower Protection Act?