While the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (“WPEA”) protects whistleblowers from retaliation for disclosing a violation of law, rule, or regulation, the statute does not define those terms. In its first whistleblower retaliation case since Congress allowed whistleblower appellants from Board decisions to file in any U.S. Court of Appeals for a five-year trial period, the Fourth Circuit grappled with the definition of “rule” and its applicability to non-mandatory provisions.

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.