The House cooks up another turkey of a bill, guts whistleblower protections

by Julia Davis
Examiner
Nov. 08, 2011

Whistleblower rights are on the verge of suffering yet another setback. Today, the House introduced a bill H.R. 3289 to amend the ineffective Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA). Instead of improving an already deeply flawed Senate bill that was introduced earlier this year, the house slashed even more whistleblower protections. Provisions of this bill would:

Deprive federal employees of the right to jury trial;
Empower the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to summarily dismiss whistleblower cases without a hearing, based on affidavits filed by federal managers;
Block whistleblowers from access to more “liberal” U.S. Courts of Appeal (such as the 9th Circuit);
Force whistleblower cases into a special court.

The bill amends Section 2302(a)(2)(C) of title 5, United States Code, to exclude the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the National Reconnaissance Office and any other agencies in the intelligence community, as determined by the President.

The bill was introduced today in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. A number of prominent civil rights groups and advocates are demanding that immediate changes are made to the legislation. They strongly oppose damaging provisions of the bill, including “summary judgment” powers it seeks to grant to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Such a move would further jeopardize any chance of recourse for whistleblowers, since the MSPB is known for ruling against whistleblowers in about 98% of cases. This beleaguered agency already serves as the government’s hatchet-man in dealing with aggrieved whistleblowers. The MSPB would undoubtedly use the power of summary judgment to dismiss the majority of whistleblower cases without a hearing, causing Appellants to incur additional expenses and delaying the resolution of employment litigation.

Read More