Richard D. Herman v. Department of Justice

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the Board had no jurisdiction under the WPA for the disclosure of trivial violations of agency rules
• determining that the disclosure of a danger only potentially arising in the future is not a protected disclosure
• determining that “a reasonable person would not believe” the appellant’s disclosure evidenced a violation of an agency directive
• The WPA “was intended to root out real wrongdo- ing.” (quoting Frederick v. Dep’t of Just., 73 F.3d 349, 353 (Fed. Cir. 1996))
• find- ing no protected disclosure in petitioner’s statements about absence of suicide watch room because he “failed to identify . . . there is a specific and substantial likelihood that there will be individuals in the future needing access to the sui- cide watch room”
• find- ing no protected disclosure in petitioner’s statements about absence of suicide watch room because he “failed to identify . . . there is a specific and substantial likelihood that there will be individuals in the future needing access to the sui- cide watch room”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).