Term: 2005
Docket: 04-1131
Terry L. Whitman v. Department Of Transportation Et Al.
- Pro
04-1131 WHITMAN V. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION DECISION BELOW: 382 F3d 938 CERT. GRANTED 6/27/2005 QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. Whether 5 U.S.C. 7121 (a)' s provision that the negotiated grievance procedures of a federal collective bargaining agreement be "the exclusive administrative procedures" to resolve grievances precludes an employee from seeking direct judicial redress when he would otherwise have an independent basis for judicial review of his claims. 2. Whether the Civil Service Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. 7101 et seq., precludes federal courts from granting equitable relief for constitutional claims brought by federal employees against their employer. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 03-35303
In the case of Terry L. Whitman v. Department of Transportation et al., 2005, Terry Whitman, a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) employee and pilot, sued his employer under the Whistleblower Protection Act for retaliation after he reported safety concerns about an FAA policy that allowed certain aircraft to fly with inoperative emergency locator transmitters. The Supreme Court ruled against Whitman on procedural grounds stating that federal employees must first bring their whistleblower complaints to the Merit Systems Protection Board before they can file a lawsuit in federal court. This decision was based on interpretation of jurisdictional provisions within the Civil Service Reform Act which governs employment disputes involving federal workers.
In the dissenting opinion for Terry L. Whitman v. Department of Transportation et al., Justice Ginsburg disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA). She argued that a federal air marshal, such as Whitman, who discloses information to protect public safety should be protected under this act. The WPA was designed to encourage employees to reveal wrongdoing without fear of retaliation and she believed that it should apply in this case where an employee disclosed sensitive security information out of concern for public safety. According to her, limiting these protections could discourage other government employees from coming forward with important disclosures in future cases.
