The Federal Register

Wed, Mar 20 2013 11:00:00 GMT

The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or Board) announces the opportunity to file amicus briefs in the matter of Barbara R. King v. Department of the Air Force, MSPB Docket Number DA0752090604P1, currently pending before the Board on interlocutory appeal. The administrative judge certified for interlocutory review the question of whether the provisions of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 (WPEA), 112 Public Law 199, with regard to damages may be applied retroactively to cases pending prior to its effective date.

Of particular relevance in King is the question of the retroactive effect of section 107(b) of the WPEA, which addresses damages available to individuals who have suffered reprisal for protected disclosures or activities. Prior to enactment of the WPEA, the corrective action available to such individuals under the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) included reasonable and foreseeable consequential damages, but not compensatory, or nonpecuniary, damages. See Boha

Fri, Feb 8 2013 11:00:00 GMT

The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or Board) announces the opportunity to file amicus briefs in the matter of Thomas F. Day v. Department of Homeland Security, MSPB Docket Number SF1221120528W 1, currently pending before the Board on interlocutory appeal. The administrative judge certified for interlocutory review the question of whether the provisions of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 (WPEA), 112 Public Law 199, may be applied retroactively to pending cases involving conduct occurring prior to its effective date.

Of particular relevance in Day is the question of the retroactive effect of section 101(b)(2)(B) of the WPEA, which provides in relevant part that a disclosure made to an alleged wrongdoer or during an employee's normal course of duties is not excluded from protection against reprisal under 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8). In Huffman v. Office of Personnel Management, 263 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2001), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a