A firefighter at the Department of the Navy petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for review after the Merit Systems Protection Board ordered the Agency to determine if and when the employee would have been removed had he not retired before settling on what relief to grant him in the successful appeal of his involuntary retirement.

On November 15, 2017, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued its annual Performance and Accountability Report, accompanied by a press release that touted the Agency’s improved management of case inventory, and the $86 million in monetary relief for federal employees and applicants that was secured through the EEOC.

On October 6, 2017, two petitions for writs of certiorari were filed with the United States Supreme Court, asking the Court to determine whether the time period for a federal employee to appeal a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is purely jurisdictional, and therefore cannot be “equitably tolled” under any circumstances.

On October 26, 2017, the Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act (“the Act”) of 2017, was enacted. Dr. Kirkpatrick, a clinical psychologist at a VA Medical Center who complained that his patients were often too affected by medication to treat properly, committed suicide in 2015 after he was removed during his probationary period.

On October 26, 2017, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, after granting the Department of Justice’s petition for rehearing en banc, vacated its prior decision, and found that preference-eligible FBI employees appealing an adverse action to the Merit Systems Protection Board may not raise an affirmative defense of whistleblower reprisal, nor may they file an individual right of action (“IRA”) appeal to bring whistleblower claims to the Board.

On October 13, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted a petition for rehearing en banc filed by the Department of Defense, and vacated the court’s panel opinion in Federal Education Association-Stateside Region v. Department of Defense. 841 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016), reversing an arbitrator’s opinion after finding a due process violation. In its October 13, 2017 order, the appeals court requested that the parties address the relevant cases and issues, but specifically requested that the parties address the court’s decisions in Sullivan v. Department of Navy, 720 F.2d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and Ryder v. United States, 585 F.2d 482 (Ct. Cl. 1978).