Black v. Department of Justice, 85 M.S.P.R. 650 (2000)--
BACK PAY AND COMPLIANCE ISSUES
In restating its law, the Board held here that a status quo ante remedy does not require "perfect consistency" as to all aspects of an appellant’s pre- and post-removal positions, but that she is entitled to "all the essential privileges of [her] previous position." The Board’s enforcement authority under 5 U.S.C. § 1204(a)(2) is not limited by the discretionary authority normally reposed in an agency official, so that, in this case, the appellant, a Special Agent, was entitled to reissuance of the type of badge and credentials she held prior to her removal, despite the general authority of the Commissioner to issue those documents.
 

Morman v. Department of Defense, 90 M.S.P.R. 197 (2001)
If the appellant is unable to work because of an accident or illness closely related or due to interim employment or because of the unlawful discharge, the period of disability should be included in her back pay period. Case law suggests that, if the EEOC determined that the appellant’s work-related disability was related to unlawful discrimination, it would find that the agency improperly limited her relief by denying reinstatement and "lost wages" for the period during which she was unable to work. The Board remanded the case for inquiry into whether the "lost wages" award by EEOC equates to the same status quo ante relief the Board would award under the Back Pay Act.
 

Weber v Justice, 88 MSPR 345, April 23, 2001.  Reversing an initial decision, the Board found that the employee's post removal employment was not "moonlighting" and not employment that he would have could or would have worked had he not been improperly removed by the agency.  As a result, his earnings from such employment should properly be deducted from his backpay award.  In this case, the employee unsuccessfully claimed that his employment as a driver was simply a continuation of his "moonlighting" employment as a town policeman prior to his removal.  Critical to this holding was the finding that the agency had withdrawn approval for the moonlighting as a policeman at the time of his removal and there was a significant difference between his previous moonlighting position and the employment as a driver.
 

Reddice v USPS, DC0752990621C-1, December 12, 2001.  The agency action placing the employee in an off-duty, non-pay status and subsequently removing him based on an altercation with another employee.  The placement in an off-duty, non-pay status was reversed and the intervening agency action reducing the removal to a 14-day suspension was sustained.  The employee then alleged that as a consequence of the agency's actions, he had surgery to relieve pain and that he had lost custody of his child.  The Board noted that while it may award consequential damages, including medical costs, where it order corrective action in either a whistleblower appeal or in response to an Office of Special Counsel complaint, neither situation applied here.  It also noted its authority to award compensatory damages based on a successful claim of intentional discrimination, the employee did not establish intentional discrimination in this case.  The employe's claims for damages were denied.