Jump to content

Whistleblower Protection Act: Difference between revisions

Whistleblower Protection Act (view source)

Revision as of 23:20, 7 February 2025

4 bytes removed ,  Yesterday at 23:20
m
Text replacement - "Associated Press" to "Associated Press"
VisualWikitext
m (1 revision imported)
m (Text replacement - "Associated Press" to "Associated Press")
 
Line 67: Line 67:


==Legal cases==
==Legal cases==
The [[Supreme Court of the United States|US Supreme Court]], in the 2006 case of ''[[Garcetti v. Ceballos]]'', ruled that [[Civil service|government employees]] do not have protection from retaliation by their employers under the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] of the Constitution when they speak pursuant to their official job duties.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/05/30/national/w132119D75.DTL&type=politics|title=High Court Trims Whistleblower Rights|last=Holland|first=Gina|date=May 30, 2006|work=[[San Francisco Chronicle]]|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060601213237/http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2006%2F05%2F30%2Fnational%2Fw132119D75.DTL&type=politics|archive-date=June 1, 2006|agency=[[Associated Press]]|access-date=August 14, 2021}}</ref> The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) uses agency lawyers in the place of [[administrative law judges]] to decide federal employees' whistleblower appeals. These lawyers, dubbed "attorney examiners," deny 98% of whistleblower appeals; the Board and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals give great deference to their initial decisions, resulting in affirmance rates of 97% and 98%, respectively.<ref>McCarthy, Robert J.[http://www.wm.edu/as/publicpolicy/wm_policy_review/Archives/Volume%203/McCarthy.pdf "Blowing in the Wind: Answers for Federal Whistleblowers"]. ''William & Mary Policy Review'' 3:184 (2012).</ref> The most common characteristics for a court claim that are encompassed within the protection of the Act include: that the plaintiff is an employee or person covered under the specific statutory or common law relied upon for action, that the defendant is an employer or person covered under the specific statutory or common law relied upon for the action, that the plaintiff engaged in protected whistleblower activity, that the defendant knew or had knowledge that the plaintiff engaged in such activity, that there was retaliatory action taken against the one doing the whistleblowing and that the unfair treatment would not have occurred if the plaintiff had not brought to attention the activities.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.whistleblowers.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=63|title=Know Your Rights FAQ|publisher=[[National Whistleblowers Center]]|access-date=April 27, 2016}}</ref>
The [[Supreme Court of the United States|US Supreme Court]], in the 2006 case of ''[[Garcetti v. Ceballos]]'', ruled that [[Civil service|government employees]] do not have protection from retaliation by their employers under the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] of the Constitution when they speak pursuant to their official job duties.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/05/30/national/w132119D75.DTL&type=politics|title=High Court Trims Whistleblower Rights|last=Holland|first=Gina|date=May 30, 2006|work=[[San Francisco Chronicle]]|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060601213237/http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2006%2F05%2F30%2Fnational%2Fw132119D75.DTL&type=politics|archive-date=June 1, 2006|agency=Associated Press|access-date=August 14, 2021}}</ref> The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) uses agency lawyers in the place of [[administrative law judges]] to decide federal employees' whistleblower appeals. These lawyers, dubbed "attorney examiners," deny 98% of whistleblower appeals; the Board and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals give great deference to their initial decisions, resulting in affirmance rates of 97% and 98%, respectively.<ref>McCarthy, Robert J.[http://www.wm.edu/as/publicpolicy/wm_policy_review/Archives/Volume%203/McCarthy.pdf "Blowing in the Wind: Answers for Federal Whistleblowers"]. ''William & Mary Policy Review'' 3:184 (2012).</ref> The most common characteristics for a court claim that are encompassed within the protection of the Act include: that the plaintiff is an employee or person covered under the specific statutory or common law relied upon for action, that the defendant is an employer or person covered under the specific statutory or common law relied upon for the action, that the plaintiff engaged in protected whistleblower activity, that the defendant knew or had knowledge that the plaintiff engaged in such activity, that there was retaliatory action taken against the one doing the whistleblowing and that the unfair treatment would not have occurred if the plaintiff had not brought to attention the activities.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.whistleblowers.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=63|title=Know Your Rights FAQ|publisher=[[National Whistleblowers Center]]|access-date=April 27, 2016}}</ref>


[[Robert MacLean]] of the [[Federal Air Marshal Service]] blew the whistle on the fact that the [[Transportation Security Administration|TSA]] had cut its funding for hiring additional [[sky marshal|air marshal]]s. In 2009, the [[Government Accountability Project]] challenged MacLean's dismissal to the Merit Systems Protection Board on the grounds that "his disclosure of the text message was protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, because he 'reasonably believe[d]' that the leaked information disclosed 'a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety'." In ''[[Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean]]'' (2015), the Supreme Court ruled in his favor.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://couragefound.org/2014/11/whistleblower-protection-case-reaches-us-supreme-court/|title=Whistleblower protection case reaches US Supreme Court|publisher=[[Courage Foundation]]|date=November 7, 2014|access-date=April 27, 2016}}</ref>
[[Robert MacLean]] of the [[Federal Air Marshal Service]] blew the whistle on the fact that the [[Transportation Security Administration|TSA]] had cut its funding for hiring additional [[sky marshal|air marshal]]s. In 2009, the [[Government Accountability Project]] challenged MacLean's dismissal to the Merit Systems Protection Board on the grounds that "his disclosure of the text message was protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, because he 'reasonably believe[d]' that the leaked information disclosed 'a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety'." In ''[[Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean]]'' (2015), the Supreme Court ruled in his favor.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://couragefound.org/2014/11/whistleblower-protection-case-reaches-us-supreme-court/|title=Whistleblower protection case reaches US Supreme Court|publisher=[[Courage Foundation]]|date=November 7, 2014|access-date=April 27, 2016}}</ref>
Retrieved from ‘https://openusaproject.com/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/27695’