D.C. Code § 2-223.03
This is the official text of D.C. Code § 2-223.03, part of District of Columbia’s Code — part of the compiled statutory law of District of Columbia, published by the state as "Code." Browse the sections below, each linked to its official government source.
Not legal advice. This page reproduces the official text of a government statute for reference only. Laws change, and how a statute applies depends on your specific facts. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed attorney in your state.
§ 2-223.03. Enforcement.
Official statutory text
(a) An employee aggrieved by a violation of § 2-223.02 may bring a civil action before a court or a jury in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia seeking relief and damages, including but not limited to injunction, reinstatement to the same position held before the prohibited personnel action or to an equivalent position, and reinstatement of the employee’s seniority rights, restoration of lost benefits, back pay and interest on back pay, compensatory damages, reasonable costs, and attorney fees. A civil action shall be filed within 3 years after a violation occurs or within one year after the employee first becomes aware of the violation, whichever occurs first.
(a-1) A government contractor aggrieved by a violation of § 2-223.02(b) may bring a civil action before a court or a jury in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia seeking relief and damages, including an injunction, compensatory damages, reasonable costs, and attorney fees. A civil action shall be filed within 2 years after a violation occurs or within one year after the contractor first becomes aware of the violation, whichever occurs first.
(b) In a civil action or administrative proceeding, once it has been demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that an activity proscribed by § 2-223.02 was a contributing factor in the alleged prohibited personnel action against an employee, the burden of proof shall be on the employing District instrumentality or contractor, or the person or entity that employed the security officer, to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged action would have occurred for legitimate, independent reasons even if the employee had not engaged in activities protected by this section.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a violation of § 2-223.02 constitutes a complete affirmative defense for a whistleblower to a prohibited personnel action in an administrative review, challenge, or adjudication of that action.
that the alleged action would have occurred for legitimate, independent reasons even if the employee had not engaged in activities protected by this section.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a violation of § 2-223.02 constitutes a complete affirmative defense for a whistleblower to a prohibited personnel action in an administrative review, challenge, or adjudication of that action.
(d) An employee who prevails in a civil action at the trial level shall be granted the equitable relief provided in the decision effective upon the date of the decision, absent a stay.
(a-1) A government contractor aggrieved by a violation of § 2-223.02(b) may bring a civil action before a court or a jury in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia seeking relief and damages, including an injunction, compensatory damages, reasonable costs, and attorney fees. A civil action shall be filed within 2 years after a violation occurs or within one year after the contractor first becomes aware of the violation, whichever occurs first.
(b) In a civil action or administrative proceeding, once it has been demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that an activity proscribed by § 2-223.02 was a contributing factor in the alleged prohibited personnel action against an employee, the burden of proof shall be on the employing District instrumentality or contractor, or the person or entity that employed the security officer, to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged action would have occurred for legitimate, independent reasons even if the employee had not engaged in activities protected by this section.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a violation of § 2-223.02 constitutes a complete affirmative defense for a whistleblower to a prohibited personnel action in an administrative review, challenge, or adjudication of that action.
that the alleged action would have occurred for legitimate, independent reasons even if the employee had not engaged in activities protected by this section.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a violation of § 2-223.02 constitutes a complete affirmative defense for a whistleblower to a prohibited personnel action in an administrative review, challenge, or adjudication of that action.
(d) An employee who prevails in a civil action at the trial level shall be granted the equitable relief provided in the decision effective upon the date of the decision, absent a stay.
Status: in_force · Read it on the official government site
Need a lawyer in District of Columbia?
Find a District of Columbia lawyer
About this page: Statute text is reproduced from official government publishers via the
Open US Law dataset
(Vaquill AI, snapshot v2026.08, CC BY 4.0). Primary legislative text like this is public domain under the government-edicts doctrine
(Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). We link every section back to its official source so you can verify it independently.