Federal Worker Protection Act

Summary#

The Federal Worker Protection Act would limit nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) that could stop federal employees and contractors from reporting wrongdoing. It would require covered NDAs to include a clear, plain-language notice titled "YOUR PROTECTED DISCLOSURE RIGHTS" listing the channels where employees may make protected disclosures (for example, the Office of Special Counsel, Inspectors General, GAO, Congress, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and federal courts). The bill says agencies cannot use NDAs to punish or threaten employees for protected disclosures and makes any NDA provision that conflicts with whistleblower statutes void.

The bill would require agencies to submit NDA templates to the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) for review and certification before use. OSC must decide within 60 days or give provisional approval, keep a public registry of templates and determinations, and re-review certified templates at least every two years. Inspectors General must independently review NDA templates, certify compliance, report to Congress, and publish deficiencies. The Government Accountability Office must audit NDA practices governmentwide on a repeating schedule.

The bill creates a private right of action so an employee can sue in federal court if threatened with or subject to retaliatory NDA enforcement. Courts could issue injunctions, declare NDA provisions void as applied, and award compensatory or punitive damages and attorney's fees. The bill also provides removal protections for Inspectors General after a negative certification and requires agencies to fix existing NDA templates within 180 days after enactment.

What it means for you#

• If you are a federal employee or contractor whose job gives access to nonpublic government information, covered NDAs you are asked to sign would need a clear rider explaining your disclosure rights.
• Agencies would not be allowed to enforce NDA terms to punish protected disclosures listed in law.
• You could sue in federal court without first using administrative procedures if an agency threatens or enforces an NDA to retaliate for a protected disclosure.
• Agencies must get OSC clearance before using NDA templates, and Inspectors General must review and report on NDA use.
• Existing covered NDAs would have 180 days after enactment for agencies to comply, and during that time those NDAs would be treated as if they had the required plain-language rider.

Expenses#

• The bill would create a civil penalty of at least $5,000 per violation against an agency that imposes a covered NDA that lacks the required plain-language rider, and it authorizes reasonable attorney's fees and costs for affected employees (Sec. 3(c)).
• Courts could award compensatory and possibly punitive damages, plus attorney's fees and costs, in private suits under the bill (Sec. 5).
• No publicly available information about overall budgetary costs, savings, or a full governmentwide fiscal estimate is included in the bill text provided.

Proponents' View#

Supporters in the bill's findings say federal employees are the last line of defense against waste, fraud, abuse, and illegal conduct. They argue NDAs can chill protected disclosures through unclear wording or threats of enforcement. The bill is presented as a way to protect statutory whistleblower rights, ensure oversight agencies can review NDAs, make enforcement transparent, and preserve employees' ability to report wrongdoing.

Opponents' View#

No publicly available information.