Wilburn v. District of Columbia

How courts have described this case

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

• emphasizing that DCWPA protection is meant to extend to employees who possess knowledge of concealed wrongdoing
• noting that “the federal whistleblower statute . . . is instructive in interpreting . . . the DC-WPA”
• “[A] ‘protected disclosure’ under the DC-WPA is one that the employee ‘reasonably believes’ evidences one or more of the circumstances delineated in D.C. Code § 1-615.52(a)(6)(A)-(E).”
• “For there to be a protected disclosure, ‘an employee must disclose such serious errors by the agency that a conclusion that the agency erred is not debatable among reasonable people.’”
• “In none of her communications . . . did Wilburn . . . us[e] the language of ‘gross’ waste or abuse, or of ‘violations,’ or any of the other abuses listed in section 615.52(6), or any similar language.”
• complaint stating that a law firm reviewing cases for a D.C. agency was not satisfactorily performing all of its work could not be later re-characterized as a complaint intending to disclose gross mismanagement or any other wrongdoing on the agency’s part by retaining the law firm

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).