Brief of Michael German, Robert Kobus, Jane Turner, Dr. Frederic
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
No. 17-1098 In the Supreme Court of the United States JOHN C. PARKINSON, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit BRIEF OF MICHAEL GERMAN, ROBERT KOBUS, JANE TURNER, DR. FREDERIC WHITEHURST, NATIONAL WHISTLEBLOWER CENTER, AND PROJECT ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER JOSHUA A. GELTZER GREGORY DUBINSKY INSTITUTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL Counsel of Record ADVOCACY AND PROTECTION DANIEL M. HOROWITZ GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW WENDY L. GREEN CENTER HOLWELL SHUSTER 600 New Jersey Ave. NW & G OLDBERG LLP Washington, DC 20001 750 Seventh Avenue (202) 661-6728 New York, NY 10019 [email protected] (646) 837-5132 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae March 8, 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... ii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ................................1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT................................................................2 ARGUMENT................................................................4 I. The Federal Circuit’s Decision Leaves Preference-Eligible FBI Whistleblowers Without Adequate Protection from Reprisal…4 A. The Federal Circuit’s Decision Contravenes The Plain Text Of The Statute. ........................4 B. As The Experience Of Amici Shows, The Federal Circuit’s Decision Exposes Preference- Eligible Whistleblowers To Flawed Procedures Simply Because They Work At The FBI..........6 C. The FBI Regulations Provide Lesser Protections Than Congress Intended To Grant To Veterans. ....................................................12 II. Certiorari Should Be Granted To Correct The Federal Circuit’s Concerning Pattern Of Unduly Narrowing Whistleblower Protections.…………………………………...… 13 CONCLUSION ..........................................................16 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES CFTC v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833 (1986)…………………………………. 12 Clark v. Dep’t of Army, 997 F.2d 1466 (Fed. Cir. 1993) …………………… 15 Fisher v. Dep’t of Defense, 52 M.S.P.R. 470 (M.S.P.B. 1992) ………………… 14 Haley v. Dep’t of Treasury, 977 F.2d 553 (Fed. Cir. 1992) …………………….. 14 Horton v. Dep’t of Navy, 66 F.3d 279 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ……………………… 14 Jarecki v. United States, 590 F.2d 670 (7th Cir. 1979) ……………………….. 6 Lathram v. Snow, 336 F.3d 1085 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ……………….……. 3 Padilla v. Dep’t of Air Force, 55 M.S.P.R. 540 (M.S.P.B. 1992) ……………...…. 14 Pers. Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979) ………………………………. 3, 6 United States v. Fausto, 484 U.S. 439 (1988) ………………………………….. 6 Willis v. Dep’t of Agriculture, 141 F.3d 1139 (Fed. Cir. 1998) …………………… 14 iii STATUTES 5 U.S.C. § 1221 …………………………………………. 5 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b)(9) …………………………………… 2 5 U.S.C. § 2302 ...……………….……………….. 2, 5, 13 5 U.S.C. § 2303 ………………………………… 2, 5, 7, 9 5 U.S.C. § 7511 ……………………………..…..…..…... 3 5 U.S.C. § 7513(d) ……………………………..….....…. 3 5 U.S.C. § 7701 ………………………………….. 3, 5, 12 5 U.S.C. § 7703 ………………………………….…. 5, 12 Pub. L. No. 101-12…….……………………….…. 13, 15 Pub. L. No. 103-424, § 4(b) …………………..…...…. 15 Pub. L. No. 112-199…………...……..…………… 14, 15 REGULATIONS 28 C.F.R. § 27.4(e)(3) …………………………………. 12 28 C.F.R. § 27.5 …….…………………………………. 12 OTHER AUTHORITIES Carrie Johnson, A Decade After Blowing the Whistle on the FBI, Vindication, Nat’l Public Radio (Apr. 15, 2015), available at https://www.npr.org/2015/04/15/398518857/9-years- after-blowing-the-whistle-on-the-fbi-he-s-been- vindicated …...........…………………………………. 11 iv Dep’t of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Executive Summary, The FBI Laboratory: An Investigation into Laboratory Practices and Alleged Misconduct in Explosives-Related and Other Cases (Apr. 1997), available at https://oig.justice.gov/special/9704a/index.htm …. 7 Eric Lichtblau, Report Finds Cover-Up in an F.B.I. Case, N.Y. Times, Dec. 4, 2005, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/politics/report- finds-coverup-in-an-fbi-terror-case.html ……….. 10 Government Settles Suit Over F.B.I. Laboratory, N.Y. Times, July 7, 2000, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/07/us/national- news-briefs-government-settles-suit-over-fbi- laboratory.html …………………………………........ 8 Joe Davidson, Report Says Procedures Put a Chilling Effect on Potential FBI Whistleblowers, Wash. Post, Mar. 3, 2015, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_g overnment/report-says-procedures-put-a-chilling- effect-on-potential-fbi- whistleblowers/2015/03/03/160b8708-c1cf-11e4- 9271-610273846239_story.html .…………………. 10 Nat’l Whistleblower Ctr., Robert Kobus, https://www.whistleblowers.org/meet-the- whistleblowers/1544-robert-kobus ………………. 11 National Security Whistleblowers in the Post- September 11th Era: Lost in a Labyrinth and Facing Subtle Retaliation: Hearing Before the Subcomm. On Nat’l Security, Emerging Threats, v and Int’l Relations of the H. Comm. On Gov’t Reform, 109th Cong. 132-34 (2006) .………………. 9 Terry Friedman, FBI whistle-blower leaves, gets $1.16 million, CNN, February 27, 1998 available at http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/27/fbi.whitehurst ... 7 U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., GAO-15-112, Whistleblower Protection: Additional Actions Needed to Improve DOJ’s Handling of FBI Retaliation Complaints 45 (2015) …………………. 8 1 INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE1 Michael German, Robert Kobus, Jane Turner, and Dr. Frederic Whitehurst are former employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. During their ten- ures, they all reported misconduct at the FBI; and the ensuing investigations or litigation, as well as the re- percussions they suffered, highlight the importance of robust whistleblower protections. These amici con- tinue to advocate for protection of whistleblowers in the Executive Branch. The National Whistleblower Center (NWC) is a nonprofit, non-partisan, tax-exempt, charitable or- ganization dedicated to the protection of whistleblow- ers. Founded in 1988, the NWC is keenly aware of the challenges facing FBI employees who report miscon- duct. See National Whistleblower Center, www.whis- tleblowers.org. Part of the NWC’s core mission is to monitor major legal developments and file amicus briefs in order to assist courts in understanding the important public-policy implications raised in many whistleblower cases. Two of the individual amici, Ms. Turner and Dr. Whitehurst, currently serve in leader- ship positions with the NWC. The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) is a non-partisan independent watchdog organization that champions good government reforms. POGO’s in- vestigations into corruption, misconduct, and conflicts of interest achieve a more effective, accountable, open, and ethical federal government. Since its inception, POGO has been at the forefront of efforts to 1 All parties have given their consent to the filing of amicus briefs. No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no person other than amici’s counsel made a monetary contribution to fund the preparation or submission of this brief. 2 strengthen whistleblower protection laws, including the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT This case concerns a key protection for employees at the Federal Bureau of Investigation who blow the whistle on misconduct. Federal law expressly shields whistleblowers from reprisal for protected disclosures. 5 U.S.C. §§ 2302, 2303; see also id. § 2301(b)(9). The Federal Circuit nonetheless held below that FBI whis- tleblowers who otherwise qualify to appeal certain ad- verse employment actions, such as termination, to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) may not claim once there that they were targeted in retaliation for blowing the whistle. That holding contravenes the statutory scheme Congress mandated for whistleblow- ers and exposes FBI employees to inadequate internal agency procedures. Without this Court’s intervention, the Federal Circuit’s decision will chill critical disclo- sures by would-be whistleblowers. As Congress has recognized, whistleblowers “play a critical role in keeping our government efficient and honest.” S. Rep. No. 114-261, at 1-2 (2016). Whistle- blowers at the FBI, including the individual amici, have alerted the public to serious abuses, maintaining the American people’s trust in the integrity and com- petence of their government. By reporting misconduct, however, whistleblowers often “risk retaliation from their employers,” including “being demoted, reas- signed, or fired.” Id. Congress has thus accorded robust safeguards to ensure that federal employees feel protected and are protected when they sound the alarm. As a general matter, Congress has afforded all military veterans in federal service—regardless of the agency in which the 3 veteran serves—heightened procedural rights, includ- ing the right to appeal certain adverse employment actions to the MSPB and to eventually seek judicial review. 5 U.S.C. §§ 7511, 7513(d), 7701. Those “pref- erence-eligible” employees have the right to challenge before the MSPB (and on appeal) the agency’s adverse employment action on the grounds that it is “not in accordance with law.” Id. § 7701(c)(2)(C). Access to those adjudicative forums, and the attendant right to argue that the employee suffered an adverse action that violated the law, are preferences designed to “re- ward veterans for the sacrifice of military service.” Lathram v. Snow, 336 F.3d 1085, 1093 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (quoting Pers. Adm’r of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 265 (1979)). No other employees in the FBI (or in a number of other agencies)