Brief Fact Summary. Janice Bohac (Petitioner) successfully challenged her termination under the Whistleblower Protection Act (Act). She asked for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. The court denied non-pecuniary damages. Petitioner appealed
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Section 1221 of the Whistleblower’s Protection Act does not allow for damages for pain and suffering. The government has not waived its right to sovereign immunity with respect to such claims
Nothing in this remedial scheme purports to recompense a Title VII plaintiff for any of the other traditional harms associated with personal injury, such as pain and suffering, emotional distress, harm to reputation, or other consequential damages.View Full Point of Law
Issue. Should the Merit Systems Protection Board’s decision not to award non-pecuniary damages to Petitioner stand?
The relevant section of the Act states that a wrongfully discharged petitioner may recover “back pay and related benefits, medical costs incurred, travel expenses, and any other reasonable and foreseeable consequential changes.” 5 U.S.C. Section: 1221(g)(A)
In common law, damages are usually not awarded for emotional distress except in special circumstances when the case involves innkeepers, common carriers, or for importer disposition of a dead body, none of which are relevant here.
Recent case law concerning wrongful termination, occasionally awarded damages for emotional distress, but this does not establish a strong enough pattern.
If Congress had intended for petitioners to received non-pecuniary damages under the Act, they would have used the words “compensatory damages”
Discussion. The court established that situations when breach of contract cases can result in damages for emotional distress are specific and narrowly drawn, and applies this concept to the interpretation of the federal statute. Overall, the court upholds the common law concept that damages for breach of contract do not include damages for emotional distress.