Kenneth D. Huffman v. Office of Personnel Management

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “an employee who makes disclosures as part of his normal duties” is not a protected whistleblower
• considering the legislative history of a prior bill that was pocket-vetoed by the President and then reintroduced the next year, noting that the language did not change
• “The WPA was established to protect employees who go above and beyond the call of duty and report infractions of law that are hidden.”
• “The purpose of the statute is to encourage disclosures that are likely to remedy the wrong.”
• “When an employee reports or states that there has been misconduct by a wrongdoer to the wrongdoer, the employee is not making a ‘disclosure’ of misconduct”
• “post-enactment statements made in the legislative history of the 1994 amendment have no bearing on our determination of the legislative intent of the drafters of the 1978 and 1989 legislation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).