1. “Whether the Federal Circuit and the Merit Systems Protection Board erred in dismissing an Individual Right of Action appeal for lack of jurisdiction where the employee’s disclosures raised a nonfrivolous allegation that the agency continued to rely on a position description containing a duplicated electronic signature—described by the agency itself as ‘sloppy work’ yet never corrected—and that such continued reliance, together with the refusal to correct material inaccuracies in the document, evidenced a potential violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(3) or an abuse of authority under 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8).”
2. “Whether repeated post-disclosure refusals by a federal agency to reinstate hazardous duty pay or to correct a defective official position description constitute independent ‘failures to take’ a personnel action under the plain meaning of 5 U.S.C. §§ 2302(a)(2)(A)(ix) and (b)(8), sufficient to support Merit Systems Protection Board jurisdiction over an Individual Right of Action appeal.”
3. “Whether the MSPB’s dismissal of an IRA appeal for failure to nonfrivolously allege that protected disclosures were a contributing factor may stand when the disclosures concern the agency’s systematic refusal to correct a position description that is factually contradictory on its face regarding hazardous duties (including CBRN and explosives exposure requirements) and that serves as the basis for the ongoing denial of hazardous duty pay under 5 U.S.C. § 5545(d) and 5 C.F.R., pt. 550, subpt. I.”
