Training for Supervisors
[Pub. L. 115–73, title I, § 106], Oct. 26, 2017, [131 Stat. 1238], provided that: “In consultation with the Special Counsel and the Inspector General of the agency (or senior ethics official of the agency for an agency without an Inspector General), the head of each agency shall provide training regarding how to respond to complaints alleging a violation of whistleblower protections (as defined in [former] section 2307 of title 5, United States Code, as added by section 107) available to employees of the agency—“(1)
to employees appointed to supervisory positions in the agency who have not previously served as a supervisor; and
“(2)
on an annual basis, to all employees of the agency serving in a supervisory position.”
[For definitions of “agency” and “employee” as used in [section 106 of Pub. L. 115–73], set out above, see [section 101 of Pub. L. 115–73], set out as a note under section 1212 of this title.]
Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation
[Pub. L. 107–174], May 15, 2002, [116 Stat. 566], as amended by [Pub. L. 109–435, title VI, § 604(f)], Dec. 20, 2006, [120 Stat. 3242]; [Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title XI], §§ 1132–1134(a)(1), (b), 1135–1137, Jan. 1, 2021, [134 Stat. 3900–3903], provided that:“SECTION 1.
SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
“(a)
Short Title.—
This Act may be cited as the ‘Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002’.
“TITLE I—
GENERAL PROVISIONS
“SEC. 101.
FINDINGS.
“Congress finds that—
“(1)
Federal agencies cannot be run effectively if those agencies practice or tolerate discrimination;
“(2)
Congress has heard testimony from individuals, including representatives of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the American Federation of Government Employees, that point to chronic problems of discrimination and retaliation against Federal employees;
“(3)
in August 2000, a jury found that the Environmental Protection Agency had discriminated against a senior social scientist, and awarded that scientist $600,000;
“(4)
in October 2000, an Occupational Safety and Health Administration investigation found that the Environmental Protection Agency had retaliated against a senior scientist for disagreeing with that agency on a matter of science and for helping Congress to carry out its oversight responsibilities;
“(5)
there have been several recent class action suits based on discrimination brought against Federal agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the United States Marshals Service, the Department of Agriculture, the United States Information Agency, and the Social Security Administration;
“(6)
notifying Federal employees of their rights under discrimination and whistleblower laws should increase Federal agency compliance with the law;
“(7)
requiring annual reports to Congress on the number and severity of discrimination and whistleblower cases brought against each Federal agency should enable Congress to improve its oversight over compliance by agencies with the law; and
“(8)
requiring Federal agencies to pay for any discrimination or whistleblower judgment, award, or settlement should improve agency accountability with respect to discrimination and whistleblower laws.
“SEC. 102.
SENSE OF CONGRESS.
“It is the sense of Congress that—
“(1)
Federal agencies should not retaliate for court judgments or settlements relating to discrimination and whistleblower laws by targeting the claimant or other employees with reductions in compensation, benefits, or workforce to pay for such judgments or settlements;
“(2)
the mission of the Federal agency and the employment security of employees who are blameless in a whistleblower incident should not be compromised;
“(3)
Federal agencies should not use a reduction in force or furloughs as means of funding a reimbursement under this Act;
“(4)
accountability in the enforcement of the rights of Federal employees is furthered when Federal agencies agree to take appropriate disciplinary action against Federal employees who are found to have intentionally committed discriminatory (including retaliatory) acts;
“(5)
(A)
accountability is not furthered if Federal agencies react to the increased accountability under this Act for what, by law, the agency is responsible by taking unfounded disciplinary actions against managers or by violating the procedural rights of managers who have been accused of discrimination; and
“(B)
Federal agencies should ensure that managers have adequate training in the management of a diverse workforce and in dispute resolution and other essential communication skills; and
“(6)
(A)
Federal agencies are expected to reimburse the General Fund of the Treasury within a reasonable time under this Act; and