Make your own free website on


[printed in Senate portion of the Congressional Record for March 16, 1989 (135 Cong.Rec) beginning at p. 4512. The House portion of the Congressional Record for March 21, 1989 beginning at p. 5034 contains virtually identical language.]

Quick Links
p. 4512 p. 4513 (¶6) p. 4513 (¶7) p. 4514 (¶13) p. 4514 (¶15) p. 4514(¶16)

(135 Cong.Rec. 4512, 5034)

Section 2(b) of the bill lays out the purpose of the bill. Simply stated, the bill seeks to eliminate two types of impediments which have made it unduly difficult for whistleblowers and other victims of prohibited personnel practices to win redress. One category of impediment is a string of restrictive Merit Systems Protection Board and federal court decisions. Specific provisions of the bill modify or overturn inappropriate administrative or judicial determinations and make it more likely that whistleblowers and other victims of prohibited personnel practices will win their cases.
The second category of impediments are due to the policies of the Office of Special Counsel and stem from the Special Counsel's view of its role. The clear intent of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (P.L. 94-454) was that the Special Counsel should protect and defend the rights of employees who were the victims of prohibited personnel practices. Nevertheless, the Office of Special Counsel determined that its role was to protect the merit system. And, as the General Accounting Office pointed out in its 1985 report on the operations of the Office of Special Counsel (GAO/GCD-85-53), the law could be read to support the Special Counsel's view.
The two divergent views of the role of the Office of Special Counsel–protection of the victims of prohibited personnel practices and protection of the merit system–do not conflict in most cases. However, the Special Counsel's view of the role of the Office–protecting the merit system–can and has led to instances in which the Special Counsel has acted to the actual detriment of employees seeking help from that Office. Such instances are at odds with our view of the very purpose of this Office. The purpose set out in section 2, as well as a number of operative provisions contained in the bill, is intended to foreclose the possibility that the Special Counsel will act to the detriment of an employee who comes to the Special Counsel for help.
There should be no doubt about legislative intent in passing this bill. Individuals should be able to go to the Special Counsel to make a disclosure under section 1213 of title 5, United States Code, to complain about a prohibited personnel practice under section 1214, or to allege a violation of another law within the jurisdiction of the Special Counsel under section 1216, without any fear that the information they provide or the investigation their disclosure triggers is used against them. Simply put, the Special Counsel must never act to the detriment of employees who legitimately seek the help of the Special Counsel. Unless employees have confidence that they will not be hurt by going to the Special Counsel–that the Special Counsel is a safe haven–the Office can never be a effective as Congress intends in protecting victims of prohibited personnel practices.
Language in the Senate-passed bill saying that the Special Counsel may not act contrary to the interests of employees was deleted as unnecessary.

. . .

(135 Cong.Rec. 4513, 5035)

Section 1214(a)(3) provides that employees, former employees, and applicants for employment must first seek the assistance of the Office of Special Counsel before bringing an individual right of action under section 1221. If the Special Counsel notifies the individual that the investigation has been terminated, the individual has 60 days in which to file an independent right of action. If the individual receives no notice of termination of the investigation within 120 days of filing the complaint, he or she may file an individual right of action at any time after the 120 day period has elapsed.

(135 Cong.Rec. 4513, 5035)

The bill makes it easier for an individual (or the Special Counsel on the individual's behalf) to prove that a whistleblower reprisal has taken place. To establish a prima facie case, an individual must prove that the whistleblowing was a factor in the personnel action. This supersedes the existing requirement that the whistleblowing was a substantial, motivating or predominant factor in the personnel action.
One of the many possible ways to show that the whistleblowing was a factor in the personnel action is to show that the official taking the action knew (or had constructive knowledge) of the disclosure and acted within such a period of time that a reasonable person could conclude that the disclosure was a factor in the personnel action.
The bill establishes an affirmative defense for an agency. Once the prima facie case has been established, corrective action would not be ordered if the agency demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same personnel action in the absence of the disclosure. Clear and convincing evidence is a higher standard of proof than the preponderance of the evidence standard now used.
. . . .

(135 Cong.Rec. 4514, 5035)

The House version of the legislation contained a provision requiring an election of remedies between an appeal from an adverse action and an individual right of action. This provision was deleted because of concern that a jurisdictional loss in an adverse action appeal could bar an individual from pursuing an individual right of action. Nevertheless, it is not intended that the MSPB hear the same case twice. If an individual has pursued the matter before MSPB on the merits under one right of action, the Board is expected to dismiss a case under another authority concerning the same matter under the doctrine of stare decisis.

(135 Cong.Rec. 4514, 5035)

Section 1221(j) provides that the decision of an employee to retire when faced with a proposed adverse action does not cut off that employee's right to appeal to MSPB to challenge the adverse action. This section is not limited to individual right of action cases. If an individual who has retired or received a lump sum refund is subsequently reinstated pursuant to a MSPB or court decision with back pay, the Back Pay Act (5 U.S.C. 5596) provides that adjustments shall be made to provide that the individual is treated as if the unjustified personnel action had never occurred. Under this theory, the individual receives back pay. If that happens, the money received from the retirement fund should be treated as if it were erroneously paid and the Office of Personnel Management should recover the erroneous payment. The waiver provisions under sections 8346(b) and 8470(b) of title 5 should not be applicable.

(135 Cong.Rec. 4514, 5035)

The bill contains a new section 1222 of title 5, United States Code, which provides that the network of rights and remedies created under chapter 12 and chapter 23 of title 5 is not meant to limit any right or remedy which might be available under any other statute. Other statutes which might provide relief for whistleblowers include the Privacy Act, a large number of environmental and labor statutes which provide specific protections to employees who cooperate with federal agencies, and civil rights statutes under title 42, United States Code. Section 1222 is not intended to create a cause of action where none otherwise exists or to reverse any court decision. Rather, section 1222 says it is not the intent of Congress that the procedures under chapters 12 and 23 of title 5, United States Code, are meant to provide exclusive remedies.

(135 Cong.Rec. 4514, 5035)

The bill makes certain changes in the definition of reprisal for whistleblowing (5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)). Among the changes are the inclusion of threats as a prohibited personnel practice, both with relation to whistleblowing and in relation to prohibited personnel practices defined in section 2302(b)(9). Mere harassment and threats, without any formally proposed personnel action, can constitute a prohibited personnel practice under this language.

It is obvious, but worth noting, that no Executive order, regulation, or contract can extinguish the rights provided under section 2302 of title 5. Employees have been required to sign security agreements as a condition for gaining access to classified information which seem to suggest that the signers of such agreements could be punished for disclosures protected by 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8). Insofar as these agreements seem to limit the ability of whistleblowers to exercise rights provided under chapters 12 and 23 of title 5, the security agreements are not valid.
Nevertheless, nothing in this bill permits the disclosure of classified information to any uncleared individual. Sections 2302 and 1213 set out clear channels for disclosure of wrongdoing in classified form. Such information can be properly and legally disclosed to the Special Counsel, to the Inspector General of an agency, or to a member of Congress.