Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Email
Answers.com

whistleblower

 
Dictionary: whis·tle·blow·er or whis·tle-blow·er or whistle blower (hwĭs'əl-blō'ər, wĭs'-) pronunciation
n.
One who reveals wrongdoing within an organization to the public or to those in positions of authority: "The Pentagon's most famous whistleblower is . . . hoping to get another chance to search for government waste" (Washington Post).

whistle-blowing whis'tle-blow'ing n.

Search unanswered questions...
Enter a question here...
Search: All sources Community Q&A Reference topics
Investment Dictionary: Whistle Blower
Top

An employee who has inside knowledge of illegal activities occurring within his or her organization and reports these to the public.

Investopedia Says:
Although whistle blowers are protected under federal law from employer retaliation, there have been cases where punishment for whistle blowing has occurred.

Related Links:
Where there is money, there are swindlers. Protect yourself by learning how investors have been betrayed in the past. The Biggest Stock Scams Of All Time
The better you understand why insider trading can be criminal, the better you'll understand how the market works. Defining Illegal Insider Trading


Employee or other person with inside knowl-edge of wrongdoing inside a company or government agency. The employee is supposed to be protected from retribution by the employer by several federal laws protecting whistle blowers, though whistle blowers frequently are punished for revealing wrongdoing by their employer. Several employees who disclosed illegal billing practices by defense contractors were demoted or fired, for example. In securities, under the Insider Trading and Securities Fraud Enforcement Act of 1988, whistle blowers who provide the SEC with information about illegal insider trading or other illegal activity that leads to a conviction may qualify for bounties.

 
Columbia Encyclopedia: whistle-blowing
Top
whistle-blowing, exposure of fraud and abuse by an employee. The federal law that legitimated the concept of the whistle-blower, the False Claims Act (1863, revised 1986), was created to combat fraud by suppliers to the federal government during the Civil War. Under the act, whistle-blowers can receive a percentage of the money recovered or damages won by the government in fraud cases they expose. The act also protects whistle-blowers from wrongful dismissal, allowing for reinstatement with seniority, double back pay, interest on back pay, compensation for discriminatory treatment, and reasonable legal fees. Federal legislation in 1978 barred reprisals against those who exposed government corruption. Harassment and dismissal of and the revelation of widespread waste and fraud in defense contracting led Congress to strengthen the position of whistle-blowers in 1989. Many states also have employment laws that deal with discriminatory treatment of whistle-blowers.


Law Encyclopedia: Whistleblowing
Top
This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.

The disclosure by a person, usually an employee, in a government agency or private enterprise; to the public or to those in authority, of mismanagement, corruption, illegality, or some other wrongdoing.

Since the 1960s, the public value of whistleblowing has been increasingly recognized. Federal and state statutes and regulations have been enacted to protect whistleblowers from various forms of retaliation. Even without a statute, numerous decisions encourage and protect whistleblowing on grounds of public policy. In addition, the federal False Claims Act (31 U.S.C.A. § 3729) will reward a whistleblower who brings a lawsuit against a company that makes a false claim or commits fraud against the government.

Persons who act as whistleblowers are often the subject of retaliation by their employers. Typically the employer will discharge the whistleblower, who is often an at-will employee. An at-will employee is a person without a specific term of employment. The employee may quit at any time and the employer has the right to fire the employee without having to cite a reason. However, courts and legislatures have created exceptions for whistleblowers who are at-will employees.

Whistleblowing statutes protect from discharge or discrimination an employee who has initiated an investigation of an employer's activities or who has otherwise cooperated with a regulatory agency in carrying out an inquiry or the enforcement of regulations. Federal whistleblower legislation includes a statute protecting all government employees. 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 2302(b)(8), 2302(b)(9). In the federal civil service, the government is prohibited from taking, failing to take, or threatening to take any personnel action against an employee because the employee disclosed information that she reasonably believed showed a violation of law, gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public safety or health. In order to prevail on a claim, a federal employee must show that a protected disclosure was made, that the accused official knew of the disclosure, that retaliation resulted, and that there was a genuine connection between the retaliation and the employee's action. If a federal statute does provide a remedy for retaliatory discharge, the discharged employee may not rely on a state's public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine.

Many states have enacted whistleblower statutes, but these statutes vary widely in coverage. Some statutes apply only to public employees, some apply to both public and private employees, and others apply to public employees and employees of public contractors.

Some statutes cover a broad array of circumstances, such as those that prohibit employers from dismissing workers in reprisal for disclosing information about, or seeking a remedy for, a violation of law, gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a specific danger to public safety and health. Other statutes are narrow in scope, such as one that limits the protection of public and private employees to retaliation for reporting possible violations of local, state, or federal environmental statutes. A whistleblower statute may limit protection to discussions of agency operations with members of the legislature or to disclosure of information to legislative committees or courts.

In whistleblower cases, states follow their general rules for determining whether a public policy cause of action exists in favor of the employee. Therefore, in states in which wrongful discharge actions must have a statutory basis, the case will be dismissed if the plaintiff was not exercising a statutory right or performing a statutory duty, or if the employer did not violate a statutorily enacted public policy. In many cases, the courts have refused to recognize a whistleblower's claim because no clearly mandated statutory policy has been identified. In a state that only recognizes a public policy cause of action if the employee is fired for refusing to violate public policy, that rule may preclude causes of action by whistleblowers.

Employees who blow the whistle on matters that affect only private interests will generally be unsuccessful in maintaining a cause of action for discharge in violation of public policy. As a general rule, employees claiming that they were discharged for disclosing internal corporate improprieties have been unsuccessful in establishing public policy exceptions to the at-will rule. Complaints about internal company policy also do not involve public policy supporting unjust dismissal suits.

Under the federal False Claims Act, any person with knowledge of false claims or fraud against the government may bring a lawsuit in his own name and in the name of the United States. As long as the information is not publicly disclosed and the government has not already sued the defendant for the fraud, the whistleblower, who is called a relator in this action, may bring a False Claims Act case.

The relator files the case in federal court under seal (in secret), and gives a copy to the government. The government then has sixty days to review the case and decide whether it has merit. If the government decides to join the case, the case is unsealed, a copy is served on the defendant, and the government and the relator work together in the case as co-plaintiffs. If the government declines to join the suit, the relator may proceed alone. In a successful False Claims Act case the relator will receive at least fifteen percent but not more than twenty-five percent of the proceeds of the action or settlement of the claim, depending upon the extent to which the person substantially contributed to the prosecution of the action.

See: employment at will; employment law.

Wikipedia: Whistleblower
Top

A whistleblower is a person who raises a concern about wrongdoing occurring in an organization or body of people, usually this person would be from that same organization. This misconduct may be classified in many ways; for example, a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health/safety violations, and corruption. Whistleblowers may make their allegations internally (for example, to other people within the accused organization) or externally (to regulators, law enforcement agencies, to the media or to groups concerned with the issues).

Whistleblowers frequently face reprisal - sometimes at the hands of the organization or group which they have accused, sometimes from related organizations, and sometimes under law.

Some noted whistleblowers include:

  • Robert MacLean, who disclosed that the FAMS planned to remove air marshals from long haul flights in order to avoid the cost of an overnight hotel stay.
  • Dr. David Graham, who discovered that the pain-reliever Vioxx increased the risk of cardiovascular problems, spoke out against the policies of the Food and Drug Administration, and succeeded in convincing the FDA to require large warning labels on Vioxx packaging.
  • Rick S. Piltz, who worked with the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and blew the whistle on Philip Cooney, a White House official who edited a climate change report to reflect the administration's views without having any scientific background.

Contents

Overview

Origins of term "whistleblower"

The term whistleblower derives from the practice of English bobbies (policemen), who would blow their whistles when they noticed the commission of a crime. The whistle would alert other law enforcement officers and the general public of danger.[1]

Definition of a whistleblower

Most whistleblowers are internal whistleblowers, who report misconduct to a fellow employee or superior within their company. One of the most interesting questions with respect to internal whistleblowers is why and under what circumstances people will either act on the spot to stop illegal and otherwise unacceptable behavior or report it.[2] There is some reason to believe that people are more likely to take action with respect to unacceptable behavior, within an organization, if there are complaint systems that offer not just options dictated by the organization, but a choice of options for individuals, including an option that offers near absolute confidentiality.[3]

External whistleblowers, however, report misconduct to outside persons or entities. In these cases, depending on the information's severity and nature, whistleblowers may report the misconduct to lawyers, the media, law enforcement or watchdog agencies, or other local, state, or federal agencies.

Under most U.S. federal whistleblower statutes, in order to be considered a whistleblower, the federal employee must have reason to believe his or her employer has violated some law, rule or regulation; testify or commence a legal proceeding on the legally protected matter; or refuse to violate the law.

In cases where whistleblowing on a specified topic is protected by statute, U.S. courts have generally held that such whistleblowers are protected from retaliation.[4] However, a closely divided U.S. Supreme Court decision, Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) held that the First Amendment free speech guarantees for government employees do not protect disclosures made within the scope of the employees' duties.

Common reactions to whistleblowing

Ideas about whistleblowing vary widely. Whistleblowers are commonly seen as selfless martyrs for public interest and organizational accountability; others view them as a 'tattle tale' or "snitches" (slang), solely pursuing personal glory and fame. Some academics (such as Thomas Alured Faunce) consider that whistleblowers should at least be entitled to a rebuttable presumption that they are attempting to apply ethical principles in the face of obstacles and that whistleblowing would be more respected in governance systems if it had a firmer academic basis in virtue ethics.[5][6]

It is probable that many people do not even consider blowing the whistle, not only because of fear of retaliation, but also because of fear of losing their relationships at work and outside work.[7]

Because the majority of cases are very low-profile and receive little or no media attention and because whistleblowers who do report significant misconduct are usually put in some form of danger or persecution, the idea of seeking fame and glory may be less commonly believed.[citation needed]

Persecution of whistleblowers has become a serious issue in many parts of the world. Although whistleblowers are often protected under law from employer retaliation, there have been many cases where punishment for whistleblowing has occurred, such as termination, suspension, demotion, wage garnishment, and/or harsh mistreatment by other employees. For example, in the United States, most whistleblower protection laws provide for limited "make whole" remedies or damages for employment losses if whistleblower retaliation is proven. However, many whistleblowers report there exists a widespread "shoot the messenger" mentality by corporations or government agencies accused of misconduct and in some cases whistleblowers have been subjected to criminal prosecution in reprisal for reporting wrongdoing.

As a reaction to this many private organizations have formed whistleblower legal defense funds or support groups to assist whistleblowers; one such example in the UK is Public Concern at Work. Depending on the circumstances, it is not uncommon for whistleblowers to be ostracized by their co-workers, discriminated against by future potential employers, or even fired from their organization. This campaign directed at whistleblowers with the goal of eliminating them from the organization is referred to as mobbing. It is an extreme form of workplace bullying wherein the group is set against the targeted individual.

Legal protection for whistleblowers

Legal protection for whistleblowing varies from country to country.[8] In the United Kingdom, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 provides a framework of legal protection for individuals who disclose information so as to expose malpractice and matters of similar concern. In the vernacular, it protects whistleblowers from victimisation and dismissal.

In the United States, legal protections vary according to the subject matter of the whistleblowing, and sometimes the state in which the case arises.[9] In passing the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Senate Judiciary Committee found that whistleblower protections were dependent on the "patchwork and vagaries" of varying state statutes.[10] Still, a wide variety of federal and state laws protect employees who call attention to violations, help with enforcement proceedings, or refuse to obey unlawful directions.

The first U.S. law adopted specifically to protect whistleblowers was the Lloyd-La Follette Act of 1912. It guaranteed the right of federal employees to furnish information to the United States Congress. The first U.S. environmental law to include an employee protection was the Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, also called the Clean Water Act. Similar protections were included in subsequent federal environmental laws including the Safe Drinking Water Act (1974), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (also called the Solid Waste Disposal Act) (1976), Toxic Substances Control Act (1976), Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (through 1978 amendment to protect nuclear whistleblowers), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or the Superfund Law) (1980), and the Clean Air Act (1990). Similar employee protections enforced through OSHA are included in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (1982) to protect truck drivers, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act (PSIA) of 2002, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century ("AIR 21"), and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, enacted on July 30, 2002 (for corporate fraud whistleblowers).

The patchwork of laws means that victims of retaliation need to be alert to the laws at issue to determine the deadlines and means for making proper complaints. Some deadlines are as short as 10 days (for Arizona State Employees to file a "Prohibited Personnel Practice" Complaint before the Arizona State Personnel Board; and Ohio public employees to file appeals with the State Personnel Board of Review). It is 30 days for environmental whistleblowers to make a written complaint to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA]. Federal employees complaining of discrimination, retaliation or other violations of the civil rights laws have 45 days to make a written complaint to their agency's equal employment opportunity (EEO) officer. Airline workers and corporate fraud whistleblowers have 90 days to make their complaint to OSHA. Nuclear whistleblowers and truck drivers have 180 days to make complaints to OSHA. Victims of retaliation against union organizing and other concerted activities to improve working conditions have 180 days to make complaints to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Private sector employees have either 180 or 300 days to make complaints to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (depending on whether their state has a "deferral" agency) for discrimination claims on the basis of race, gender, age, national origin or religion (but here an example of retaliation can be seen, as these anti-discrimination agencies change their areas of discrimination to suit their needs. An area of discrimination in California was if a complaining party had a civil servant relative. The state Department of Fair Employment and Housing quickly called an end to this practice. The state's RALPH Act has also proven to be non-functional.)[opinion needs balancing] Those who face retaliation for seeking minimum wages or overtime have either two or three years to file a civil lawsuit, depending on whether the court finds the violation was "willful."

Those who report a false claim against the federal government, and suffer adverse employment actions as a result, may have up to six years (depending on state law) to file a civil suit for remedies under the U.S. False Claims Act (FCA).[11] Under a qui tam provision, the "original source" for the report may be entitled to a percentage of what the government recovers from the offenders. However, the "original source" must also be the first to file a federal civil complaint for recovery of the federal funds fraudulently obtained, and must avoid publicizing the claim of fraud until the U.S. Justice Department decides whether to prosecute the claim itself. Such qui tam lawsuits must be filed under seal, using special procedures to keep the claim from becoming public until the federal government makes its decision on direct prosecution.

Federal employees could benefit from the Whistleblower Protection Act,[12] and the No FEAR Act (which made individual agencies directly responsible for the economic sanctions of unlawful retaliation). Federal protections are enhanced in those few cases were the Office of Special Counsel will uphold the whistleblower's case.

The Military Whistleblower Protection Act[13] protects the right of members of the armed services to communicate with any member of Congress (even if copies of the communication are sent to others).

Legal Acts

Ceballos case and the Whistleblower Protection Act of 2007

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt what many considered a major blow to government whistleblowers when, in the case of Garcetti v. Ceballos, 04-5, 547 US 410[14], it ruled that government employees did not have protection from retaliation in performance evaluations by their employers under the First Amendment of the Constitution if the alleged speech was produced as part of his/her duties .[15] Ceballos did not dispute that his memo was made as part of his official duties. Whistleblowers who want to pursue a federal case under the First Amendment must now always claim the memos and writings made are part not only of the official duty but of a citizen's opinion and discourse of public relevance. This can be done by alleging that the cause for retaliation is not the text of the memo but the ideas surrounding it. In the case of Ceballos he could have argued that his protected speech was his concept of strict adherence to the rule of law.

The free speech protections of the First Amendment have long been used to shield whistleblowers from retaliation by whistleblower attorneys. In response to the Supreme Court decision, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 985, the Whistleblower Protection Act of 2007. President George W. Bush, citing national security concerns, promised to veto the bill should it be enacted into law by Congress. The Senate's version of the Whistleblower Protection Act (S. 274), which has significant bipartisan support, was approved by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on June 13, 2007. However, it has yet to reach a vote by Senate as a hold has been placed on the bill by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK).[16] According to the National Whistleblower Center, Coburn's hold on S. 274 has been done to further President Bush's agenda.[17]

California False Claims Act

The California False Claims Act protects whistleblowers from retaliation from their employer under a section entitled: "Section 12653. Employer interference with employee disclosures." [18] Under this section, employers may not make rules that prevent an employee from disclosing information to the government in furtherance of a false claims action, an employer may not discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, deny promotion to, or in any other manner discriminate against, an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because he or she has disclosed information to the government.

Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA)

CEPA, New Jersey's whistleblower law, prohibits an employer from taking any retaliatory action against an employee because the employee does any of the following:

  • Discloses, or threatens to disclose, to a supervisor or to a public body an activity, policy, or practice of the employer or another employer, with whom there is a business relationship, that the employee reasonably believes is in violation of a law, or a rule or regulation issued under the law, or, in the case of an employee who is a licensed or certified health care professional, reasonably believes constitutes improper quality of patient care;
  • Provides information to, or testifies before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing or inquiry into any violation of law, or a rule or regulation issued under the law by the employer or another employer, with whom there is a business relationship, or, in the case of an employee who is a licensed or certified health care professional, provides information to, or testifies before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing or inquiry into quality of patient care; or
  • Objects to, or refuses to participate in, any activity, policy or practice which the employee reasonably believes: is in violation of a law, or a rule or regulation issued under the law, or, if the employee is a licensed or certified health care professional, constitutes improper quality of patient care; is fraudulent or criminal; or is incompatible with a clear mandate of public policy concerning the public health, safety or welfare or protection of the environment.[19]

"Concerning protection for health care workers who report patient safety information" in Colorado

"Patient safety is of paramount importance in the delivery of health care to Colorado citizens. A patient is at his or her safest when a health care worker has the right to speak out on the patient's behalf without fear of reprisal or retaliation. Health care providers recognize that, in order to deliver the highest quality health care, it is imperative that all health care workers have the right to report patient safety concerns and to advocate for a patient's well being without the risk of disciplinary action or loss of employment."[20]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Winters v. Houston Chronicle Pub. Co., 795 S.W.2d 723, 727 (Tex. 1990) (Doggett, J., concurring).
  2. ^ Dealing with—or Reporting—“Unacceptable” Behavior (With additional thoughts about the “Bystander Effect”) ©2009Mary Rowe MIT, Linda Wilcox HMS, Howard Gadlin NIH, Journal of the International Ombudsman Association 2(1), online at http://www.ombudsassociation.org/publications/journal/
  3. ^ Mary Rowe, "Options and Choice for Conflict Resolution in the Workplace" in Negotiation: Strategies for Mutual Gain, by Lavinia Hall, ed., Sage Publications, Inc., 1993, pp. 105–119.
  4. ^ http://www.oalj.dol.gov/PUBLIC/WHISTLEBLOWER/REFERENCES/REFERENCE_WORKS/EDIG12.HTM
  5. ^ Faunce TA Developing and Teaching the Virtue-Ethics Foundations of Healthcare Whistle Blowing Monash Bioethics Review 2004; 23(4): 41-55
  6. ^ Faunce TA and Jefferys S. Whistleblowing and Scientific Misconduct: Renewing Legal and Virtue Ethics Foundations Journal of Medicine and Law 2007, 26 (3): 567-84
  7. ^ Rowe, Mary & Bendersky, Corinne, "Workplace Justice, Zero Tolerance and Zero Barriers: Getting People to Come Forward in Conflict Management Systems," in Negotiations and Change, From the Workplace to Society, Thomas Kochan and Richard Locke (editors), Cornell University Press, 2002. See also Dealing with—or Reporting—“Unacceptable” Behavior (With additional thoughts about the “Bystander Effect”) ©2009Mary Rowe MIT, Linda Wilcox HMS, Howard Gadlin NIH, Journal of the International Ombudsman Association 2(1), online at http://www.ombudsassociation.org/publications/journal/
  8. ^ Global Integrity Report
  9. ^ http://www.peer.org/state/index.php
  10. ^ Congressional Record p. S7412; S. Rep. No. 107-146, 107th Cong., 2d Session 19 (2002).
  11. ^ 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h)
  12. ^ 5 U.S.C. § 1221(e)
  13. ^ 10 U.S.C. § 1034
  14. ^ Garcetti v. Ceballos, 04-5, 547 US 410
  15. ^ High Court Trims Whistleblower Rights
  16. ^ Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007 - Congresspedia
  17. ^ Take Action Now
  18. ^ California False Claims Act
  19. ^ N.J.S.A. 34:19-3
  20. ^ HOUSE BILL 07-1133. BY REPRESENTATIVE(S) Carroll M., Levy, Soper, Kefalas, Primavera, Carroll T., Cerbo, Frangas, Gagliardi, Kerr A., Labuda, McKinley, Riesberg, Solano, Buescher, Casso, Fischer, Garcia, Green, Jahn, Lambert, Madden, McGihon, Peniston, Roberts, Romanoff, and Todd; also SENATOR(S) Hagedorn, Boyd, Fitz-Gerald, Mitchell S., Shaffer, Tochtrop, Tupa, and Williams. http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/olls/sl2007a/sl_67.htm.

Resources

  • Hunt, Geoffrey (20061). The Principle of Complementarity: Freedom of Information, Public Accountability and Whistleblowing in Chapman, R & Hunt, M (eds) Freedom of Information: Perspectives on Open Government in a Theoretical and Practical Context. Ashgate, Aldershot, UK. 
  • Hunt, Geoffrey (2000). Whistleblowing, Accountability & Ethical Accounting, in. Clinical Risk 6(3): 115-16. 
  • Hunt, Geoffrey (1998). 'Whistleblowing', commissioned entry for Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics, (8,000 words). Academic Press, California, USA,. 
  • Hunt, Geoffrey (ed) (1998). Whistleblowing in the Social Services: Public Accountability & Professional Practice. Arnold. 
  • Hunt, G (ed) (1995). Whistleblowing in the Health Service: Accountability, Law & Professional Practice. Arnold. 
  • Johnson, Roberta Ann (2002). Whistleblowing: When It Works—And Why. ISBN 978-1588261144. 
  • Kohn, Stephen M (2000). Concepts and Procedures in Whistleblower Law. Quorum Books. ISBN 1-56720-354-X. 
  • Kohn, Stephen M; Kohn, Michael D; Colapinto, David K. (2004). Whistleblower Law A Guide to Legal Protections for Corporate Employees. Praeger Publishers. ISBN 0-275-98127-4. 
  • Lauretano, Major Daniel A., "The Military Whistleblower Protection Act and the Military Mental Health Protection Act", Army Law, (Oct) 1998.

External links


 
 

 

Copyrights:

Dictionary. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2007, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.  Read more
Investment Dictionary. Copyright ©2000, Investopedia.com - Owned and Operated by Investopedia Inc. All rights reserved.  Read more
Financial & Investment Dictionary. Dictionary of Finance and Investment Terms. Copyright © 2006 by Barron's Educational Series, Inc. All rights reserved.  Read more
Columbia Encyclopedia. The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition Copyright © 2003, Columbia University Press. Licensed from Columbia University Press. All rights reserved. www.cc.columbia.edu/cu/cup/ Read more
Law Encyclopedia. West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Copyright © 1998 by The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.  Read more
Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Whistleblower" Read more