A Department of Defense teacher employed in a school for children of military personnel was removed for misconduct in 2012. The teacher challenged her removal through the union’s negotiated grievance process in 2014, established via the union’s collective bargaining agreement with the agency. In 2018, the agency argued for the first time that the union’s request for arbitration was untimely.

A Department of Veterans Affairs employee challenged a suspension through an Individual Right of Action, claiming whistleblower retaliation, and also challenged his removal from federal employment through an MSPB appeal.

A Department of Veterans Affairs medical center director made multiple protected disclosures to the VA Office of Inspector General about agency spending and contracts in October 2013. He repeated those concerns in a conference call in January 2014. His second line supervisor was on that conference call. The second-line supervisor, several weeks later, appointed an Administrative Investigation Board (AIB) to investigate inappropriate relationships with subordinate staff, and investigators treated the medical center director as a subject of that investigation.

On April 6, 2020, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Babb v. Wilkie. The question in this case was whether the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) requires federal sector employees to show that age was a “but-for” cause of the personnel action taken, rather than merely show that it was tainted by any discrimination at any stage. Previously, the court interpreted the private-sector provision to require “but-for” causation. In its April 6 decision, the Court held that “[t]he plain meaning of § 633a(a) demands that personnel actions be untainted by any consideration of age.”

In a complaint filed in the United States Court of Federal Claims, five federal employees, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, alleged that they performed work “with or in close proximity to objects, surfaces, and/or individuals infected with the novel coronavirus (“COVID-19”).” On March 27, 2020, in their complaint, the employees alleged they were entitled to, but did not receive, hazardous duty pay differential for exposure to virulent biologicals set forth in federal regulations.

After the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a divided panel opinion that the Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives (“Committee”) lacked standing to seek judicial enforcement of subpoenas against current and former Executive Branch officials, the Committee petitioned the appeals court for rehearing en banc. On March 13, 2020, the appeals court vacated the earlier judgment, and granted the Committee’s petition, agreeing to a rehearing of the matter before all of the judges of the appeals court.

In 2001, a Department of Veterans Affairs employee reached a settlement agreement with the Agency after filing a whistleblower reprisal appeal (called an Individual Right of Action) at the Merit Systems Protection Board. One term of that settlement agreement was the Agency’s agreement to allow the employee to work a compressed work schedule of 10 hour days, four days per week, including three hours per workday of travel.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) removed a preference-eligible veteran from his position as an attorney advisor near the end of his one-year probationary period due to allegedly poor performance. The employee filed for corrective action with the Merit Systems Protection Board, alleging that the agency violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) when it removed him because of his preference-eligible status. An MSPB administrative judge denied the request for corrective action, and the employee appealed to the Federal Circuit. On November 7, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the MSPB decision, and remanded the case to the MSPB for a determination of the appropriate corrective action. On January 22, 2020, before the remand took effect, the government filed a petition for rehearing en banc, asking that all judges of the Federal Circuit hear the case and rule on a “precedent-setting question of exceptional importance.”

A Department of Homeland Security employee reported a potential security violation to Customs and Border Protection’s “Computer Security Incident Response Center,” (CSIRC) which led to an Internal Affairs investigation. An MSPB administrative judge ruled in an initial decision that the employee’s report did not constitute protected activity under the newly amended 5 U.S.C. section 2302(b)(9)(C). The administrative judge ruled as such notwithstanding recent changes to whistleblower protection law that broadened the scope of “protected activity” to include blowing the whistle to “any other [agency] component responsible for internal investigation or review.” The employee appealed the decision to the full Board, which is currently without a quorum.

On January 15, 2020, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in the matter of Babb v. Wilkie. The question in this case is whether the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) requires federal sector employees to show that age was a “but-for” cause of the personnel action taken. Previously, the court has interpreted the private-sector provision to require “but-for” causation.

The National Treasury Employees Union appealed the Federal Labor Relations Authority’s denial of its negotiability petition related to changes in the number of different possible rating levels for its members at U.S. Customs and Border Protection. On December 3, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied the union’s appeal, finding instead that the FLRA’s decision was “based on a permissible and reasonable interpretation of the Statute,” and that it was “consistent with well-established precedent.”

The Social Security Administration removed a preference-eligible veteran from his position as an attorney advisor near the end of his one-year probationary period due to allegedly poor performance. The employee filed for corrective action with the Merit Systems Protection Board, alleging that the agency violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) when it removed him because of his preference-eligible status. An MSPB administrative judge denied the request for corrective action, and the employee appealed to the Federal Circuit. On November 7, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the MSPB decision, and remanded the case to the MSPB for a determination of the appropriate corrective action.