Under the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 ("WPA"), 5 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq., an agency is prohibited from taking any personnel action in reprisal for the disclosure of information by an applicant that the applicant reasonably believes evidences violation of any law, rule, or regulation by another agency employee. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 1221(a), 2302(b)(8)(A)(I); see also Stella v. Mineta, 284 F.3d 135, 142 (D.C. Cir. 2002); Weber v. United States, 209 F.3d 756, 757-58 (D.C. Cir. 2000). When an agency takes such an action, it is considered to be a prohibited personnel practice ("PPP").

We have jurisdiction over this appeal if the district court had jurisdiction over this action. See Weber v. United States, 209 F.3d 756, 759 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The district court effectively concluded that it had subject matter jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus if it determined that the Office of Special Counsel violated a non-discretionary duty to investigate Carson's allegations.

Under the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (WPA), 5 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq., an agency is prohibited from taking any personnel action in reprisal for the disclosure of information by an applicant that the applicant reasonably believes evidences violation of any law, rule, or regulation by another agency employee. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 1221(a), 2302(b)(8)(A)(I); see also Stella v. Mineta, 284 F.3d 135, 142 (D.C. Cir. 2002); Weber v. United States, 209 F.3d 756, 757-58 (D.C. Cir. 2000). When an agency takes such an action, it is considered to be a "Prohibited Personnel Practice" (PPP). An employee who believes he has been the victim of a PPP must first complain to the OSC, which is required to investigate the complaint "to the extent necessary to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a prohibited personnel practice has occurred."

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit nevertheless has concluded that a United States District Court does have subject matter jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus if it determines that OSC violated a non-discretionary statutory duty to investigate an employee's allegations. See Weber v. United States, 209 F.3d 756, 759 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The court reasoned that because the Federal Circuit reviews only MSPB decisions and not OSC actions or decisions, depriving the district courts of mandamus jurisdiction over claims that OSC has failed to perform a statutory duty would foreclose all relief for such a failure.

Under the procedures set forth in Title 5 of the U.S. Code, an employee who believes she is the victim of an unlawful reprisal must first bring her claim to the OSC, which investigates the complaint. Id. § 1214; Weber v. United States, 209 F.3d 756, 758 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (describing whistleblower protection procedures under Title 5). If the OSC finds that there was a prohibited personnel action as defined by § 2302, it reports its findings to the MSPB, and it can petition the MSPB on the employee's behalf.

5 U.S.C. § 7121(g)(3)(A); 5 U.S.C. § 4303 (providing that an employee falling within certain specific categories and who has suffered a reduction in grade or removal "is entitled to appeal the action to the Merit Systems Protection Board under § 7701); 5 U.S.C. § 7513 (providing direct appeal to MSPB for employees subject to removal, suspension for more than fourteen days, reduction in grade or pay, or furlough for thirty days or less). 5 U.S.C. §§ 7121(g)(3)(C) & (4)(C); 5 U.S.C. § 1214; Weber v. United States, 209 F.3d 756, 758 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (describing whistleblower protection procedures under Title 5). Weber, 209 F.3d at 758.

Under the procedures set forth in Title 5 of the U.S. Code, an employee who believes she is the victim of an unlawful reprisal must first bring her claim to the OSC, which investigates the complaint. Id. § 1214; Weber v. United States , 209 F.3d 756, 758 (D.C.Cir.2000) (describing whistleblower protection procedures under Title 5). If the OSC finds that there was a prohibited personnel action as defined by § 2302, it reports its findings to the MSPB, and it can petition the MSPB on the employee's behalf.

Under the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 ("WPA"), 5 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq., an agency is prohibited from taking any personnel action in reprisal for the disclosure of information by an applicant that the applicant reasonably believes evidences violation of any law, rule, or regulation by another agency employee. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 1221(a), 2302(b)(8)(A)(i); see also Stella v. Mineta, 284 F.3d 135, 142 (D.C. Cir. 2002);Weber v. United States, 209 F.3d 756, 757-58 (D.C. Cir. 2000). When an agency takes such an action, it is considered to be a prohibited personnel practice ("PPP").

Employees who believe that they are the victims of unlawful reprisal must first bring their claim to the Office of Special Counsel (“OSC”), which investigates such complaints. Id. at 142; Weber v. United States, 209 F.3d 756, 758 (D.C.Cir.2000). If the OSC finds that the personnel action was prohibited, it must bring its findings before the MSPB; if the OSC investigation does not support the complaint, the employee retains the right to bring an MSPB action. Stella, 284 F.3d at 142; Weber, 209 F.3d at 758.

A federal employee who believes she has been a victim of retaliation for whistleblowing, a prohibited personnel practice, must first seek redress from the OSC. 5 U.S.C. § 1214(a); Weber v. United States, 209 F.3d 756, 757-58 (D.C. Cir. 2000).