Huffman v. Office of Personnel Management

Last updated • 5 min readFrom Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

Huffman v. Office of Personnel Management
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Full case name Kenneth D. Huffman v. Office of Personnel Management
DecidedAugust 15, 2001
Citation263 F.3d 1341
Court membership
Judges sitting Haldane Robert Mayer, William Curtis Bryson, Timothy B. Dyk
Case opinions
MajorityDyk, joined by a unanimous court
Laws applied
Whistleblower Protection Act

Huffman v. Office of Personnel Management, 263 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001) [1] is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressing a two decade-old conflict between the United States Congress and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit over the depth of whistleblower protection available to federal civilian employees covered by the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989. The discourse revolves around the meaning of the word 'any'.

Contents

Facts of the case

The complainant, Kenneth Huffman alleged that he made protected disclosures to Inspector General Patrick McFarland of the Office of Personnel Management, including that McFarland improperly preselected an agency employee for the Senior Executive Service (SES). The allegation included the accusation that the complainant was removed as an Assistant Inspector General following these communications. [2] Huffman's removal prompted his complaint under the Whistleblower Protection Act.

In 1994, the United States Congress passed an amendment to the Act. The legislative history of that amendment stated, " . . . it also is not possible to further clarify the clear language in section 2302(b)(8) that protection for 'any' whistleblowing disclosure truly means 'any.' A protected disclosure may be made as part of an employee's job duties, may concern policy or individual misconduct, and may be oral or written and to any audience inside or outside the agency, without restriction to time, place, motive or content." [3] Under Senator Levin's view, Huffman's disclosures would have been protected.

Huffman took his case to the Merit Systems Protection Board, which held that it did not have jurisdiction under the Whistleblower Protection Act to intervene in Huffman's removal. [4]

The case was argued before Chief Judge Mayer and Circuit Judges Bryson and Dyk of the Federal Circuit. James M. Eisenmann of Passman & Kaplan, P.C. argued for Huffman. James C. Caine was the trial attorney for the Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice argued for the Office of Personnel Management. [1] The government argued that whistleblower disclosures to persons who did not have authority to correct wrongdoing were not entitled to protection under the statute. The Federal Circuit remanded the case with respect to Huffman's disclosures concerning the conduct of employees other than his immediate supervisor.

The Rule as a Summarization of Existing Case Law

Despite this Congressional intent in the 1994 amendment, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit curtailed the scope of federal law by defining some communications outside the definition of 'whistleblower'. A series of Federal Circuit cases subsequent to 1994 took a narrow view of the scope of whistleblower protection. In Horton v. Dep't of the Navy, [5] the court ruled that communications to co-workers, the wrong-doer, or to a supervisor were not acts of whistleblowing. [6] In Willis v. Dep't of Agriculture, the court ruled that a whistleblower's disclosures to officials in the agency chain of command or those made in the course of normal duties were not protected. [7] Then, finally, the court issued Huffman v. Office of Personnel Management, reaffirming Horton and Willis through the rule in Huffman. [8] Finally, in Meuwissen v. Dep't of the Interior, the court ruled that a whistleblower's communication of previously known information does not qualify as a disclosure. [9] In 2003, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan took to the Senate floor and noted that "[a]ll of these rulings violate clear Congressional intent to afford broad protection to whistleblower disclosures." [8]

Criticism of the case

Immediately following the release of Huffman, then-U.S. Special Counsel Elaine Kaplan noted that the court did actually reject the Justice Department's argument that would have left whistleblowers unprotected except when disclosures were made to persons with the actual authority to correct the alleged wrongdoing. Kaplan noted that "had the Court endorsed this argument, it would have gutted the WPA; obviously, whistleblowers cannot be required to guess at their peril whether the individual to whom they are disclosing wrongdoing possesses the legal authority to correct it." "Moreover," she noted, "the adoption of this argument would have meant that whistleblowers would not be protected when they made disclosures to the media or the public at large—precisely the opposite of what Congress intended when it enacted the WPA." [10]

In her 2001 press statement, Kaplan also observed that the court's other rulings "appear to undermine in crucial respects the policies underlying the Whistleblower Protection Act: to encourage employees to come forward when they uncover serious wrongdoing during the course of their employment." The Office of Special Counsel noted that under the court's ruling employees are not protected when they make disclosures during the course of performing their duties, "an auditor at the Department of Defense, for example, who uncovers massive fraud and waste of funds, would not be protected against retaliation when he reports the fraud as part of his job duties up the chain of command. Similarly, a meat inspector with the Department of Agriculture would not be protected against retaliation by his superiors if they were displeased with his reports of serious health and safety violations by a meat packing plant." "The whole point of the WPA," Special Counsel Kaplan observed, "is that government employees, because of their job duties, are in a position to discover misconduct and malfeasance." [11]

Finally, Kaplan noted, "the Federal Circuit's ruling that the WPA does not protect employees who make their disclosures directly to the person they suspect of wrongdoing is contrary to public policy because it would discourage employees from attempting to raise and resolve their concerns within the chain of command. An employee may reasonably suspect that their superior has engaged in misconduct, but may wish to confront the superior with their suspicions first, before making them public." In such situations, Special Counsel Kaplan observed, "the Federal Circuit's ruling would perversely require the employees to go public and embarrass the agency in order to maintain the Act's protection, where their concerns might well have been resolved in-house." [11]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">False Claims Act of 1863</span> United States federal anti-fraud law

The False Claims Act of 1863 (FCA) is an American federal law that imposes liability on persons and companies who defraud governmental programs. It is the federal government's primary litigation tool in combating fraud against the government. The law includes a qui tam provision that allows people who are not affiliated with the government, called "relators" under the law, to file actions on behalf of the government. This is informally called "whistleblowing", especially when the relator is employed by the organization accused in the suit. Persons filing actions under the Act stand to receive a portion of any recovered damages.

Whistleblowing is the activity of a person, often an employee, revealing information about activity within a private or public organization that is deemed illegal, immoral, illicit, unsafe or fraudulent. Whistleblowers can use a variety of internal or external channels to communicate information or allegations. Over 83% of whistleblowers report internally to a supervisor, human resources, compliance, or a neutral third party within the company, hoping that the company will address and correct the issues. A whistleblower can also bring allegations to light by communicating with external entities, such as the media, government, or law enforcement. Some countries legislate as to what constitutes a protected disclosure, and the permissible methods of presenting a disclosure. Whistleblowing can occur in the private sector or the public sector.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Office of Special Counsel</span> Investigative and prosecutorial agency

The United States Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is a permanent independent federal investigative and prosecutorial agency whose basic legislative authority comes from four federal statutes: the Civil Service Reform Act, the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Hatch Act, and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). OSC's primary mission is the safeguarding of the merit system in federal employment by protecting employees and applicants from prohibited personnel practices (PPPs), especially reprisal for "whistleblowing." The agency also operates a secure channel for federal whistleblower disclosures of violations of law, rule, or regulation; gross mismanagement; gross waste of funds; abuse of authority; and substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. In addition, OSC issues advice on the Hatch Act and enforces its restrictions on partisan political activity by government employees. Finally, OSC protects the civilian employment and reemployment rights of military service members under USERRA. OSC has around 140 staff, and the Special Counsel is an ex officio member of Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), an association of inspectors general charged with the regulation of good governance within the federal government.

Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving First Amendment free speech protections for government employees. The plaintiff in the case was a district attorney who claimed that he had been passed up for a promotion for criticizing the legitimacy of a warrant. The Court ruled, in a 5–4 decision, that because his statements were made pursuant to his position as a public employee, rather than as a private citizen, his speech had no First Amendment protection.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Merit Systems Protection Board</span> Independent quasi-judicial agency

The Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) is an independent quasi-judicial agency established in 1979 to protect federal merit systems against partisan political and other prohibited personnel practices and to ensure adequate protection for federal employees against abuses by agency management.

Dennis G. Jacobs is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Whistleblower Protection Act</span> US law regarding protection of federal whistleblowers

The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended, is a United States federal law that protects federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report the possible existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority or a substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. A federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if agency authorities take retaliatory personnel action against any employee or applicant because of disclosure of information by that employee or applicant.

The Government Accountability Project (GAP) is a nonprofit whistleblower protection and advocacy organization in the United States. It was founded in 1977 by the Institute for Policy Studies.

The National Whistleblower Center (NWC) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, tax exempt, educational and advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1988 by the lawyers Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, LLP. As of June 2021, Siri Nelson is the executive director. Since its founding, the center has worked on whistleblower cases relating to environmental protection, nuclear safety, government and corporate accountability, and wildlife crime.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Raymond Kethledge</span> American judge (born 1966)

Raymond Michael Kethledge is a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2008. Kethledge appeared on Donald Trump's list of potential Supreme Court of the United States nominees in 2016, and was described by press reports as a finalist in President Trump's nomination to replace Anthony Kennedy on the court.

The Federal Accountability Initiative for Reform (FAIR) was a Canadian public interest organization and registered charity whose purpose was to support legislation and management practices that protect whistleblowers.

The Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act came into force in Canada on April 15, 2007. The Act creates two distinct processes: a disclosure process and a reprisal complaints process. It also creates two new bodies: the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (PSIC) and the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Department of Defense Whistleblower Program</span>

The Department of Defense Whistleblower Program in the United States is a whistleblower protection program within the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) whereby DoD personnel are trained on whistleblower rights. The Inspector General's commitment fulfills, in part, the federal mandate to protect whistleblowers. It also administers the Defense Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Program (DICWP), as a sub-mission for the intelligence community. The Inspector General's Defense Criminal Investigative Service also conducts criminal investigations which rely, in part, on Qui Tam relators.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Daniel P. Meyer</span> American attorney

Daniel P. Meyer is an attorney admitted in the District of Columbia and is currently the Managing Partner of the Washington D.C. Office of Tully Rinckey, PLLC, an international law firm headquartered at Albany, New York, and co-founded by Mathew Tully and Greg Rinckey.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Andrew D. Hurwitz</span> American judge (born 1947)

Andrew David Hurwitz is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He served as a justice of the Arizona Supreme Court from 2003 to 2012.

Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661 (1994), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees in the workplace. By a 7–2 margin the justices held that it was not necessary to determine what a nurse at a public hospital had actually said while criticizing a supervisor's staffing practices to coworkers, as long as the hospital had formed a reasonable belief as to the content of her remarks and reasonably believed that they could be disruptive to its operations. They vacated a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in her favor, and ordered the case remanded to district court to determine instead if the nurse had been fired for the speech or other reasons, per the Court's ruling two decades prior in Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle.

The Defense Intelligence Community Whistleblower Program (DICWP) is a sub-mission of the United States Department of Defense Whistleblower Program. In administering the DICWP, the Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Defense (DoDIG) balances the competing national security and separation of powers interests raised by whistleblowing within the Defense Intelligence Community.The DoDIG provides a safe, authorized conduit for Defense Department whistleblowers to disclose classified information. The Inspector General also has authority to investigate whistleblowing reprisal allegations filed by civilian and military members of the Defense Intelligence Community. It therefore accepts the disclosures and provides source protection for those providing the information. The Department of Defense funds and supervises much of the Republic's intelligence gathering. DoD IG accordingly provides protection to a large number of civilian and military intelligence personnel.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Whistleblower protection in the United States</span>

A whistleblower is a person who exposes any kind of information or activity that is deemed illegal, unethical, or not correct within an organization that is either private or public. The Whistleblower Protection Act was made into federal law in the United States in 1989.

Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965), was a 1965 decision of the United States Supreme Court that held, for the first time, that enforcement of a fraudulently procured patent violated the antitrust laws and provided a basis for a claim of treble damages if it caused a substantial anticompetitive effect.

Whistleblower protection in Australia is offered for certain disclosures under a patchwork of laws at both federal and state level. Eligibility for protection depends on the requirements of the applicable law and the subject matter of the disclosure. Not all disclosures are protected by law in Australia. At federal level, whistleblowers face potential imprisonment for making disclosures about certain subjects, including national security and immigration matters.

References

  1. 1 2 Huffman v. Office of Personnel Management, 263F.3d1341 (Fed. Cir.2001).
  2. ↑ Mahoney and Jeffery, PLLC, What Constitutes Whistleblowing, WIFLE (Women in Federal Law Enforcement) E-News (Sept. 2009).
  3. ↑ Remarks of the Honorable Carl Levin (D-MI), United States Senator, Cong. Rec. (June 10, 2003) at 14238-9.
  4. ↑ Huffman v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., No. DC-1221-99-0178-W-1 (M.S.P.B. Mar. 25, 1999) (initial decision); Huffman v. Office of Pers. Mgmt., 84 M.S.P.R. 569, 570 (Dec. 14, 1999) (final order).
  5. ↑ Horton v. Dep't of the Navy, 66F.3d279 (Fed. Cir.1995).
  6. ↑ Levin remarks at 14239; see also Robert G. Vaughn, Merit Systems Protection Board: Rights and Remedies (American Lawyer Media 2004) at § 15.03(3); Barbara Sapin, 'Beyond Garcetti: The Limits of Protection' in Retaliation and Whistleblowers (Kluwer Law International 2009) at 605.
  7. ↑ Willis v. Dep't of Agriculture, 141F.3d1139 (Fed. Cir.1998).
  8. 1 2 Levin remarks at 14239.
  9. ↑ Meuwissen v. Dep't of the Interior, 234F.3d9 (Fed. Cir.2000).
  10. ↑ U.S. Office of Special Counsel, Press Release, Special Counsel Expresses Concern Over Court's Narrow Interpretation of the Whistleblower Protection Act (Aug. 20, 2001 Archived 2010-11-28 at the Wayback Machine ).
  11. 1 2 U.S. Office of Special Counsel, Press Release (Aug. 20, 2001 Archived 2010-11-28 at the Wayback Machine ).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.