Does the Whistleblower Protection Act prohibit retaliation for the exercise of protected rights?
Protected Whistleblowing Under 5 USC 2302(B)(9)
The WPA Section (b)(9)(A) protects an employee’s exercise of “any appeal, complaint, or grievance right granted by law, rule, or regulation,” including complaints filed in a formal adjudicative proceeding (Owen v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 63 M.S.P.R. 621, 627 (1994)). The MSPB has interpreted “any appeal right” to include:
Filing EEO complaints and appeals (see, for example, Spruill v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 978 F.2d 679 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).
Filing grievances (see, for example, Serrao v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 95 F.3d 1569, 1574-75 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).
MSPB appeals (see, for example, Luecht v. Dep’t of the Navy, 87 M.S.P.R. 297, 302 (2000)).
Unfair labor practice (ULP) charges (see, for example, Grant v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 61 M.S.P.R. 370, 377 (1994)).
Requests under the Privacy Act to correct allegedly false information in personnel records (Santillan v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 53 M.S.P.R. 487, 491 (1992)).
Prohibited Personnel Practice complaints to OSC (Booker v. U.S. Postal Serv., 53 M.S.P.R. 507, 509 (1992)).
Civil lawsuits (Creer v. U.S. Postal Serv., 62 M.S.P.R. 656, 660 (1994)).
Preparatory activity, including:
-union-related activities, such as attempting to organize and establish a union (see Ireland v. Dep’t of Health and Human Serv., 34 M.S.P.R. 614, 620 (1987)) or helping union members to file grievances (see Page v. Dep’t of the Navy, 101 M.S.P.R. 513, 516 (2006));
-the announced intention to file an EEO complaint (Special Counsel v. Zimmerman, 36 M.S.P.R. 274, 291 (1988));
-contacting an EEO counselor for advice (Johnson v. Dep’t of the Army, 37 M.S.P.R. 95, 97 (1988)); and
-writing a letter to OSC, even if the letter had not been sent (Special Counsel v. Harvey, 28 M.S.P.R. 595, 603–04 (1984) (holding official’s awareness of complainant’s intent to file a complaint with OSC was protected)).
Classification appeals (see, for example, Lacross v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., MSPB No. DC-3443-16-0613-I-1, 2016 WL 3386716 (June 16, 2016); Sanders v. Dep’t of Treasury, MSPB No. SF-1221-10-0187-W-1, 2010 WL 5820680 (July 8, 2010); Cook v. Dep’t of the Army, MSPB No. CH-0752-05-0830-S-1, 2005 WL 2932525 (Sept. 19, 2005)).
Filing claims under the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act (“VEOA”) (Shaver v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 106 M.S.P.R. 601, 605 n. 3 (2007)).
Activity Not Protected as Exercising Any Appeal, Complaint, or Grievance Right
The MSPB has found that the following activities are not protected as the exercise of “any appeal right”:
Filing a workers’ compensation claim (Von Kelsch v. Dep’t of Labor, 59 M.S.P.R. 503, 508–09 (1993)).
Informal complaints (Garst v. Dep’t of the Army, 56 M.S.P.R. 371, 386-87 (1993)).
Informal advocacy (Stover v. Dep’t of Interior, 63 M.S.P.R. 46 (1994)). OSHA disclosures (Owen v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 63 M.S.P.R. 621, 628 (1994)).
Disclosing information obtained while acting as an EEO counselor, although these disclosures are protected under Section 2302(b)(8) (Gonzalez v. Dep’t of Housing and Urban Dev., 64 M.S.P.R. 314, 318 (1994)).
Testifying for or Lawfully Assisting the Exercise of Any Appeal, Complaint, or Grievance Right
Under Section 2302(b)(9)(B), the MSPB has found that the following activities constitute “testifying for or otherwise lawfully assisting” an individual’s exercise of an appeal, complaint, or grievance right:
Executing an affidavit during an EEO investigation (Adair v. U.S. Postal Serv., 66 M.S.P.R. 159, 165 (1995)).
Providing information during an EEO investigation (Peterson v. Dep’t of Transp., 54 M.S.P.R. 178, 183 (1992)).
Allegedly refusing to cover up an EEO violation (Marable v. Dep’t of the Army, 52 M.S.P.R. 622, 630 (1992)).
Testifying at an EEO hearing (Cloonan v. U.S. Postal Serv., 65 M.S.P.R. 1, 4 (1994)).
Union officials acting on behalf of members in connection with ULP charges and EEO complaints (Wooten v. Dep’t of Health and Human Serv., 54 M.S.P.R. 143, 146 (1992)).
