Federal whistleblowers are entitled to damages of missed future pay, court rules

I'm a little confused about this and the article doesn't help explain it very well.

On the one hand it says

"The latter category has long been interpreted to include future lost earnings, the court said, including when reputational harm can hurt employees’ earning potential."

Which makes it sound like the decision is no big deal and in standing with long set precedent.

But then it also says, "Patrick Walsh, one of Perlick's attorneys, said the case could have far reaching impact."

But it isn't clear what the far reaching impact is, since future earnings have always been a factor?

It sounds like the actual far reaching impact is this?

"The court also said MSPB erred when it ruled Perlick was not entitled to compensatory damages because she was not guaranteed a job after her research concluded. Instead, the judges ruled, Perlick needed only to show that a preponderance of the evidence that she was likely to have future employment. That standard does not require certainty, the court ruled"

So they just clarified you don't need a guarantee of a future job to seek lost future wages, just a preponderance of evidence?

I'm just trying to parse what is actually novel & news here and the article isn't helping.

That's would be a great incentive especially for better payed workers with possibly more access to critical information.

Instinctively I worry about unintended consequences for this sort of thing, but in this case it seems...pretty good? Can anyone think of any?

Any sociopath who is afraid of whistleblowers will work the system until they are the person (or part of the committee) that handles whistleblower complaints.

I have seen this at multiple employers.

The whistleblower system is hopelessly broken.

> Federal whistleblowers are entitled to damages of missed future pay, court rules

I guess they forgot the "if they manage to stay alive" part. /s

I expect Julian Arrange to get a substantial award.