3 ms·

I'm a little confused about this and the article doesn't help explain it very well. On the one hand it says "The latter category has long been interpreted to

I'm a little confused about this and the article doesn't help explain it very well. On the one hand it says "The latter category has long been interpreted to include future lost earnings, the court said, including when reputational harm can hurt employees’ earning potential." Which makes it sound like the decision is no big deal and in standing with long set precedent. But then it also says, "Patrick Walsh, one of Perlick's attorneys, said the case could have far reaching impact." But it isn't clear what the far reaching impact is, since future earnings have always been a factor? It sounds like the actual far reaching impact is this? "The court also said MSPB erred when it ruled Perlick was not entitled to compensatory damages because she was not guaranteed a job after her research concluded. Instead, the judges ruled, Perlick needed only to show that a preponderance of the evidence that she was likely to have future employment. That standard does not require certainty, the court ruled" So they just clarified you don't need a guarantee of a future job to seek lost future wages, just a preponderance of evidence? I'm just trying to parse what is actually novel & news here and the article isn't helping.

gnicholas 2y ago
My reading (IAAL) is that in 2012 the whistleblower laws were changed, and key language was added in. That language has been interpreted, in other contexts, to include future earnings. But the new law had not yet been tested, so this case is a "case of first impression" in that regard. The reason it will have far reaching impact is that potential whistleblowers will no longer worry about losing future earnings, which could have deterred (especially younger) potential whistleblowers.
- freddie_mercury 2y ago
  Thanks, that makes sense I guess. Wish the article had spelled that out. Saying "the law was changed in 2012 but this aspect of it hadn't been tested before, though similar language in other laws and other contexts had been" seems like a key bit of explanation that is missing.
mannykannot 2y ago
Few (if any) laws set out an exact decision procedure thorough enough to determine precisely whether it applies in every possible case, and if so, the corresponding response to be mandated. In this particular case, the issue was what counted as consequential damage from the illegal actions. The VA argued that as the whistle-blower was working on renewable one-year contracts, the lost earnings were fully compensated for by back-pay up to the end of the contract in effect at the time. Her lawyers argued her firing interrupted her research, prevented her from publishing on it and damaged her reputation in a way that could have impacted her future employment. While this issue could be framed as being one about how much evidence is required here, I feel that, more importantly, it is a rejection of the VA's premise, which amounted to the claim that the end-date of the plaintiff's contract set a horizon beyond which no harm could be attributed to the VA's illegal actions. While this ostensibly only applies to workers on fixed contracts, I imagine the same principle could be applied in other cases where the employer attempts to limit the scope of damages to the specific position held by the employee at the time of the infringement.

gnicholas 2y ago

My reading (IAAL) is that in 2012 the whistleblower laws were changed, and key language was added in. That language has been interpreted, in other contexts, to include future earnings. But the new law had not yet been tested, so this case is a "case of first impression" in that regard. The reason it will have far reaching impact is that potential whistleblowers will no longer worry about losing future earnings, which could have deterred (especially younger) potential whistleblowers.

freddie_mercury 2y ago
Thanks, that makes sense I guess. Wish the article had spelled that out. Saying "the law was changed in 2012 but this aspect of it hadn't been tested before, though similar language in other laws and other contexts had been" seems like a key bit of explanation that is missing.

mannykannot 2y ago

Few (if any) laws set out an exact decision procedure thorough enough to determine precisely whether it applies in every possible case, and if so, the corresponding response to be mandated. In this particular case, the issue was what counted as consequential damage from the illegal actions. The VA argued that as the whistle-blower was working on renewable one-year contracts, the lost earnings were fully compensated for by back-pay up to the end of the contract in effect at the time. Her lawyers argued her firing interrupted her research, prevented her from publishing on it and damaged her reputation in a way that could have impacted her future employment. While this issue could be framed as being one about how much evidence is required here, I feel that, more importantly, it is a rejection of the VA's premise, which amounted to the claim that the end-date of the plaintiff's contract set a horizon beyond which no harm could be attributed to the VA's illegal actions. While this ostensibly only applies to workers on fixed contracts, I imagine the same principle could be applied in other cases where the employer attempts to limit the scope of damages to the specific position held by the employee at the time of the infringement.