FEDERAL · 5 U.S.C. · Chapter SUBCHAPTER III—INDIVIDUAL RIGHT OF ACTION IN CERTAIN REPRISAL CASES
Individual right of action in certain reprisal cases
5 U.S.C. § 1221
Title5 — Government Organization and Employees
ChapterSUBCHAPTER III—INDIVIDUAL RIGHT OF ACTION IN CERTAIN REPRISAL CASES
This text of 5 U.S.C. § 1221 (Individual right of action in certain reprisal cases) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
5 U.S.C. § 1221.
Text
(a)Subject to the provisions of subsection (b) of this section and subsection 1214(a)(3), an employee, former employee, or applicant for employment may, with respect to any personnel action taken, or proposed to be taken, against such employee, former employee, or applicant for employment, as a result of a prohibited personnel practice described in section 2302(b)(8) or section 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D), seek corrective action from the Merit Systems Protection Board.
(b)This section may not be construed to prohibit any employee, former employee, or applicant for employment from seeking corrective action from the Merit Systems Protection Board before seeking corrective action from the Special Counsel, if such employee, former employee, or applicant for employment has the right to
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human Resources
532 U.S. 598 (Supreme Court, 2001)
Carson v. Department of Energy
398 F.3d 1369 (Federal Circuit, 2005)
Kirkendall v. Department of the Army
479 F.3d 830 (Federal Circuit, 2007)
Mitchum v. Hurt
73 F.3d 30 (Third Circuit, 1996)
Hicks v. Merit Systems Protection Board
819 F.3d 1318 (Federal Circuit, 2016)
Dr. R. Michael Harding v. Department of Veterans Affairs
448 F.3d 1373 (Federal Circuit, 2006)
Strickland-Donald v. Department of the Army
657 F. App'x 959 (Federal Circuit, 2016)
Collica v. Department of the Army
651 F. App'x 981 (Federal Circuit, 2016)
Robert J MacLean v. Department of Homeland Security
2024 MSPB 15 (Merit Systems Protection Board, 2024)
Rory C Flynn v. Securities and Exchange Commission
(Merit Systems Protection Board, 2024)
Jaime Figueroa v. Department of Transportation
(Merit Systems Protection Board, 2024)
Sarah K Fox v. Department of Commerce
(Merit Systems Protection Board, 2024)
Robert Donnell Donaldson v. Department of Homeland Security
(Merit Systems Protection Board, 2014)
Rocky Freudenberg v. Department of Veterans Affairs
(Merit Systems Protection Board, 2024)
Lewis Moss v. Department of Defense
(Merit Systems Protection Board, 2014)
Stephen B. Linder v. Department of Justice
2014 MSPB 84 (Merit Systems Protection Board, 2014)
Alarid v. Army
(Federal Circuit, 2024)
Margaret M. Reed v. Department of Veterans Affairs
2014 MSPB 85 (Merit Systems Protection Board, 2014)
Lynn R. Rios v. Department of Commerce
(Merit Systems Protection Board, 2014)
Special Counsel ex rel. Kimberly Barnett v. Department of Homeland Security
(Merit Systems Protection Board, 2014)
Source Credit
History
(Added Pub. L. 101–12, §3(a)(13), Apr. 10, 1989, 103 Stat. 29; amended Pub. L. 103–424, §§4, 8(b), Oct. 29, 1994, 108 Stat. 4363, 4365; Pub. L. 112–199, title I, §§101(b)(1)(A), (2)(A), 104(c)(2), 107(b), 114(b), Nov. 27, 2012, 126 Stat. 1465, 1468, 1469, 1472; Pub. L. 115–73, title I, §102(b), Oct. 26, 2017, 131 Stat. 1236; Pub. L. 115–91, div. A, title X, §1097(c)(3)(B), Dec. 12, 2017, 131 Stat. 1619.)
Editorial Notes
Editorial Notes
Amendments
2017—Subsec. (k). Pub. L. 115–91 added subsec. (k) and struck out former subsec. (k) which read as follows: "If the Merit Systems Protection Board grants a stay to an employee in probationary status under subsection (c), the head of the agency employing the employee shall give priority to a request for a transfer submitted by the employee."
Pub. L. 115–73 added subsec. (k).
2012—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 112–199, §101(b)(1)(A), inserted "or section 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D)" after "section 2302(b)(8)".
Subsec. (e)(1). Pub. L. 112–199, §101(b)(1)(A), (2)(A), inserted "or section 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D)" after "section 2302(b)(8)" in two places and inserted "or protected activity" after "disclosure" wherever appearing.
Subsec. (e)(2). Pub. L. 112–199, §114(b), inserted ", after a finding that a protected disclosure was a contributing factor," after "ordered if".
Subsec. (g)(1)(A)(ii). Pub. L. 112–199, §107(b), substituted "any other reasonable and foreseeable consequential damages, and compensatory damages (including interest, reasonable expert witness fees, and costs)." for "and any other reasonable and foreseeable consequential changes."
Subsec. (g)(4). Pub. L. 112–199, §104(c)(2), added par. (4).
Subsec. (i). Pub. L. 112–199, §101(b)(1)(A), inserted "or section 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D)" after "section 2302(b)(8)".
1994—Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 103–424, §4(a), added par. (1) and struck out former par. (1) which read as follows: "At the request of an employee, former employee, or applicant for employment seeking corrective action under subsection (a), the Board may issue a subpoena for the attendance and testimony of any person or the production of documentary or other evidence from any person if the Board finds that such subpoena is necessary for the development of relevant evidence."
Subsec. (e)(1). Pub. L. 103–424, §4(b), which directed the amendment of section 1221(e)(1), without specifying the Code title to be amended, by inserting at end "The employee may demonstrate that the disclosure was a contributing factor in the personnel action through circumstantial evidence, such as evidence that—
"(A) the official taking the personnel action knew of the disclosure; and
"(B) the personnel action occurred within a period of time such that a reasonable person could conclude that the disclosure was a contributing factor in the personnel action.", was executed to subsec. (e)(1) of this section to reflect the probable intent of Congress.
Subsec. (f)(3). Pub. L. 103–424, §4(c), added par. (3).
Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 103–424, §8(b), added par. (1) and redesignated former pars. (1) and (2) as (2) and (3), respectively.
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 2012 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 112–199 effective 30 days after Nov. 27, 2012, see section 202 of Pub. L. 112–199, set out as a note under section 1204 of this title.
Effective Date
Subchapter effective 90 days following Apr. 10, 1989, see section 11 of Pub. L. 101–12, set out as an Effective Date of 1989 Amendment note under section 1201 of this title.
Amendments
2017—Subsec. (k). Pub. L. 115–91 added subsec. (k) and struck out former subsec. (k) which read as follows: "If the Merit Systems Protection Board grants a stay to an employee in probationary status under subsection (c), the head of the agency employing the employee shall give priority to a request for a transfer submitted by the employee."
Pub. L. 115–73 added subsec. (k).
2012—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 112–199, §101(b)(1)(A), inserted "or section 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D)" after "section 2302(b)(8)".
Subsec. (e)(1). Pub. L. 112–199, §101(b)(1)(A), (2)(A), inserted "or section 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D)" after "section 2302(b)(8)" in two places and inserted "or protected activity" after "disclosure" wherever appearing.
Subsec. (e)(2). Pub. L. 112–199, §114(b), inserted ", after a finding that a protected disclosure was a contributing factor," after "ordered if".
Subsec. (g)(1)(A)(ii). Pub. L. 112–199, §107(b), substituted "any other reasonable and foreseeable consequential damages, and compensatory damages (including interest, reasonable expert witness fees, and costs)." for "and any other reasonable and foreseeable consequential changes."
Subsec. (g)(4). Pub. L. 112–199, §104(c)(2), added par. (4).
Subsec. (i). Pub. L. 112–199, §101(b)(1)(A), inserted "or section 2302(b)(9)(A)(i), (B), (C), or (D)" after "section 2302(b)(8)".
1994—Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 103–424, §4(a), added par. (1) and struck out former par. (1) which read as follows: "At the request of an employee, former employee, or applicant for employment seeking corrective action under subsection (a), the Board may issue a subpoena for the attendance and testimony of any person or the production of documentary or other evidence from any person if the Board finds that such subpoena is necessary for the development of relevant evidence."
Subsec. (e)(1). Pub. L. 103–424, §4(b), which directed the amendment of section 1221(e)(1), without specifying the Code title to be amended, by inserting at end "The employee may demonstrate that the disclosure was a contributing factor in the personnel action through circumstantial evidence, such as evidence that—
"(A) the official taking the personnel action knew of the disclosure; and
"(B) the personnel action occurred within a period of time such that a reasonable person could conclude that the disclosure was a contributing factor in the personnel action.", was executed to subsec. (e)(1) of this section to reflect the probable intent of Congress.
Subsec. (f)(3). Pub. L. 103–424, §4(c), added par. (3).
Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 103–424, §8(b), added par. (1) and redesignated former pars. (1) and (2) as (2) and (3), respectively.
Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries
Effective Date of 2012 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 112–199 effective 30 days after Nov. 27, 2012, see section 202 of Pub. L. 112–199, set out as a note under section 1204 of this title.
Effective Date
Subchapter effective 90 days following Apr. 10, 1989, see section 11 of Pub. L. 101–12, set out as an Effective Date of 1989 Amendment note under section 1201 of this title.
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
5 U.S.C. § 1221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/5/1221.