Zirkle 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.

• holding in the context of a Whistleblower Protection Act claim that a plaintiff must show that he was subject to a “‘prohibited personnel action’ because . . . he has made a ‘protected disclosure’”
• “A purely subjective perspective of an employee is not sufficient [to demonstrate gross mismanagement] even if shared by other employees.”
• suit alleging misconduct of non sui juris agency of the District properly brought against the District, not the agency
• possibility of future reinstatement to employment with back pay precludes injunction against employment termination
• “[F]or it is well established that economic and reputational injuries are generally not irreparable.”
• “Bonds presented 2 The Court recognizes, as Defendants note in their briefing, that Lee does not apply the heightened standard from Sampson. 8 a truly extraordinary situation . . . not present here.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).