5 C.F.R. § 1201.202

Authority for awards

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Awards of attorney fees (plus costs, expert witness fees, and litigation expenses, where applicable). The Board is authorized by various statutes to order payment of attorney fees and, where applicable, costs, expert witness fees, and litigation expenses. These statutory authorities include, but are not limited to, the following authorities to order payment of:

(1) Attorney fees, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 7701(g)(1), where the appellant or respondent is the prevailing party in an appeal under 5 U.S.C. 7701 or an agency action against an administrative law judge under 5 U.S.C. 7521, and an award is warranted in the interest of justice;

(2) Attorney fees, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 7701(g)(2), where the appellant or respondent is the prevailing party in an appeal under 5 U.S.C. 7701, a request to review an arbitration decision under 5 U.S.C. 7121(d), or an agency action against an administrative law judge under 5 U.S.C. 7521, and the decision is based on a finding of discrimination prohibited under 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(1);

(3) Attorney fees and costs, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 1221(g)(2), where the appellant is the prevailing party in an appeal under 5 U.S.C. 7701 and the Board's decision is based on a finding of a prohibited personnel practice;

(4) Attorney fees and costs, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 1221(g)(1)(B), where the Board orders corrective action in a whistleblower appeal to which 5 U.S.C. 1221 applies;

(5) Attorney fees, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 1214(g)(2) or 5 U.S.C. 7701(g)(1), where the Board orders corrective action in a Special Counsel complaint under 5 U.S.C. 1214;

(6) Attorney fees, costs and damages as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 1214(h) where the Board orders corrective action in a Special Counsel complaint under 5 U.S.C. 1214 and determines that the employee has been subjected to an agency investigation that was commenced, expanded or extended in retaliation for the disclosure or protected activity that formed the basis of the corrective action.

(7) Attorney fees, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 1204(m), where the respondent is the prevailing party in a Special Counsel complaint for disciplinary action under 5 U.S.C. 1215;

(8) Attorney fees, expert witness fees, and litigation expenses, as authorized by the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, 38 U.S.C. 4324(c)(4); and

(9) Attorney fees, expert witness fees, and other litigation expenses, as authorized by the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act; 5 U.S.C. 3330c(b).

(b) Awards of consequential damages. The Board may order payment of consequential damages, including medical costs incurred, travel expenses, and any other reasonable and foreseeable consequential damages:

(1) As authorized by 5 U.S.C. 1221(g)(1)(A)(ii), where the Board orders corrective action in a whistleblower appeal to which 5 U.S.C. 1221 applies; and

(2) As authorized by 5 U.S.C. 1221(g)(4) where the Board orders corrective action to correct a prohibited personnel practice and determines that the employee has been subjected to an agency investigation that was commenced, expanded, or extended in retaliation for the disclosure or protected activity that formed the basis of the corrective action.

(3) As authorized by 5 U.S.C. 1214(g)(2), where the Board orders corrective action in a Special Counsel complaint under 5 U.S.C. 1214.

(4) As authorized by 5 U.S.C. 1214(h) where the Board orders corrective action to correct a prohibited personnel practice and determines that the employee has been subjected to an agency investigation that was commenced, expanded, or extended in retaliation for the disclosure or protected activity that formed the basis of the corrective action.

(c) Awards of compensatory damages. The Board may order payment of compensatory damages, as authorized by section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. 1981a), based on a finding of unlawful intentional discrimination but not on an employment practice that is unlawful because of its disparate impact under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 (5 U.S.C. 1221(g)) also authorizes an award of compensatory damages in cases where the Board orders corrective action. Compensatory damages include pecuniary losses, future pecuniary losses, and nonpecuniary losses such as emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life.

(d) Awards of liquidated damages. The Board may award an amount equal to back pay as liquidated damages under 5 U.S.C. 3330c when it determines that an agency willfully violated an appellant's veterans' preference rights.

(e) Definitions. For purposes of this subpart:

(1) A proceeding on the merits is a proceeding to decide an appeal of an agency action under 5 U.S.C. 1221 or 7701, an appeal under 38 U.S.C. 4324, an appeal under 5 U.S.C. 3330a, a request to review an arbitration decision under 5 U.S.C. 7121(d), a Special Counsel complaint under 5 U.S.C. 1214 or 1215, or an agency action against an administrative law judge under 5 U.S.C. 7521.

(2) An addendum proceeding is a proceeding conducted after issuance of a final decision in a proceeding on the merits, including a decision accepting the parties' settlement of the case. The final decision in the proceeding on the merits may be an initial decision of a judge that has become final under § 1201.113 of this part or a final decision of the Board.

[63 FR 41179, Aug. 3, 1998, as amended at 65 FR 5409, Feb. 4, 2000; 77 FR 62373, Oct. 12, 2012; 78 FR 39546, July 2, 2013]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: Van Prichard v. Dep't of Def., 484 F. App'x 489 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Van Prichard v. Dep't of Def., 484 F. App'x 489 (Fed. Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “§ 1214 (g)(2) and 5 C.F.R. § 1201.202 (b)(2), this power does not avail Prichard for two reasons.”
Katherine Coffman v. Special Couns., 2022 MSPB 18 (MSPB 2022). · cites it 2× “§ 1222 and 5 C.F.R. § 1201.202 (a) give the Board discretion to award fees under section 7701(g)(1).”
Timothy Schultz v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 2022 MSPB 23 (MSPB 2022). “The regulations may be found at 5 C.F.R. §§ 1201.202 , 1201.203, and 1208.”
Lisa J. Hess v. United States Postal Serv., 2016 MSPB 40 (MSPB 2016). “1995) (Table); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.202 (c) (reflecting the Board’s authority to award compensatory damages under the C ivil Rights Act of 1991).”
Michelle Gilewicz v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 2024 MSPB 7 (MSPB 2024). “222 , ¶¶ 9-10, 27 (2012); see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.202 (c). In this context, the Board has adopted the EEOC’s criteria for proving both the 6 The Board may follow a nonprecedential decision of a court when, as here, it finds the reasoning persuasive.”
Alvern C. Weed v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 2016 MSPB 45 (MSPB 2016). “See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.202 (b)-(c) (listing the statutes that authorize the Board to award consequential and compensatory damages); cf.”
Lisa J. Hess v. United States Postal Serv., 2016 MSPB 40 (MSPB 2016). “1995) (Table); 5 C.F.R. § 1201.202 (c) (reflecting the Board’s authority to award compensatory damages under the C ivil Rights Act of 1991).”
Elissa Rumsey v. Dep't of Just., 2016 MSPB 28 (MSPB 2016). “5 C.F.R. § 1201.202 (a)(1), (4). Subsection (g)(1)(B) of section 1221 applies in this case because the Board ordered corrective action in the merits proceeding based on its finding of a prohibited personnel practice.”
Elissa Rumsey v. Dep't of Just., 2016 MSPB 28 (MSPB 2016). “5 C.F.R. § 1201.202 (a)(1), (4). Subsection (g)(1)(B) of section 1221 applies in this case because the Board ordered corrective action in the merits proceeding based on its finding of a prohibited personnel practice.”
Alvern C. Weed v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 2016 MSPB 45 (MSPB 2016). “See 5 C.F.R. § 1201.202 (b)-(c) (listing the statutes that authorize the Board to award consequential and compensatory damages); cf.”
Hickey v. Dhs (Fed. Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “§ 1221 (g)(1)(B), (g)(2); see 5 C.F.R. § 1201.202 (a) (authorizing the MSPB to award “attorney fees” under §§ 1221(g) and 7701(g)).”
Karen Moore v. Dep't of Vets. Affairs (MSPB 2022). · cites it 2× “¶6 Under 5 C.F.R. § 1201.202 (e)(1), “[a] proceeding on the merits is a proceeding to decide an appeal of an agency action ,” that is, to determine whether the appellant should be restored to the status quo ante.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.