Whistleblower Protections Under Federal Law: An Overview

[Excerpt] Legal protections for employees who report illegal misconduct by their employers have increased dramatically since the late 1970s when such protections were first adopted for federal employees in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Since that time, with the enactment of the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, Congress has expanded such protections for federal employees. Congress has also established whistleblower protections for individuals in certain private-sector employment through the adoption of whistleblower provisions in at least 18 federal statutes. Among these statutes is the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). In general, claims for relief under the 18 federal statutes follow a similar pattern. Complaints are typically filed with the Secretary of Labor, and an investigation is conducted. Following the investigation, an order is issued by the Secretary, and a party aggrieved by the order is generally permitted to appeal the Secretary’s order to a federal court. However, because 18 different statutes are involved in prescribing whistleblower protections, some notable differences exist. For example, under the Department of Defense Authorization Act of 1987, individuals employed by defense contractors who engage in whistleblowing activities file complaints with the Inspector General rather than the Secretary of Labor. Under some of the statutes, including the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Dodd-Frank Act, the Secretary’s preliminary order will become a final order if no objections are filed within a prescribed time period. This report provides an overview of key aspects of the 18 selected federal statutes applicable to individuals in certain private-sector industries. It focuses on the protections provided to employees who believe they have been subject to retaliation, rather than on how or where alleged misconduct should be disclosed. In addition, the report also includes an overview of the Whistleblower Protection Act. While state law may also provide whistleblower protections for employees, this report focuses only on the aforementioned federal statutory provisions

Survey of Federal Whistleblower and Anti-Retaliation Laws

This report provides an overview of federal whistleblower and anti-retaliation laws. In general, these laws protect employees who report misconduct by their employers or who engage in various protected activities, such as participating in an investigation or filing a complaint. In recent years, Congress has expanded employee protections for a variety of private-sector workers. Eleven of the forty laws reviewed in this report were enacted after 1999. Among these laws are the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The report focuses on key aspects of the federal whistleblower and anti-retaliation laws. For each law, the report summarizes the activities that are protected, how the law’s protections are enforced, whether the law provides a private right of action, the remedies prescribed by the law, and the year the law’s whistleblower or anti-retaliation provisions were adopted and amended. With regard to amendment dates, the report identifies only dates associated with substantive amendments. For enactments after 2001, the report provides information on congressional sponsorship and votes

Up in the Air: Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean and the Whistleblower Protection Act

This commentary analyzes the Supreme Court case Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean deciding whether an employee of the Department of Homeland Security comes under the protection of the Whistleblower Protection Act when they release potentially sensitive information to the media. Generally, the Act protects whistleblowers unless the information they release is not allowed as specified by law. The particular statutory question in this case is whether the law prohibiting release must be contained in a statute, or can include the Department of Homeland Security\u27s own promulgated regulation. The Author profiles the background of the case, applicable legal precedent, and arguments on both sides, and analyzes what the correct ruling should be

PERLINDUNGAN HUKUM BAGI PENGUNGKAP FAKTA (WHISTLEBLOWER) DALAM PERKARA TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI DIHUBUNGKAN DENGAN UNDANG-UNDANG NO. 13 TAHUN 2006 TENTANG PERLINDUNGAN SAKSI DAN KORBAN

Berlakunya Undang-undang No. 13 Tahun 2006 Tentang Perlindungan Saksi dan Korban pada tanggal 11 Agustus 2006 dinilai sebagai suatu terobosan yang diharapkan mampu menutupi kelemahan-kelemahan sistem hukum kita berkaitan dengan terabaikannya elemen saksi dan korban dalam sistem peradilan pidana sebagaimana KUHAP lebih banyak mengatur hak-hak tersangka atau terdakwa saja untuk mendapat perlindungan dari berbagai kemungkinan terjadinya pelanggaran hak asasi manusia. Undang-Undang ini dengan lebih spesifik (lex specialis) mengatur syarat dan tata cara pemberian perlindungan dan bantuan bagi saksi dan atau korban sebagai pelapor (whistleblower) yang sebelumnya terserak-serak dalam beberapa peraturan. Penelitian ini difokuskan pada Apakah pengungkap fakta (whistleblower) dalam tindak pidana korupsi dikenal dalam penegakan hukum di Republik Indonesia, Apakah upaya perlindungan hukum yang dapat diberikan kepada saksi atau korban bagi pengungkap fakta (whistleblower) berdasarkan Undang-undang No. 13 Tahun 2006 tentang Perlindungan Saksi dan Korban dan Bagaimanakah hambatan atau kendala yang terdapat dalam Undang-undang No. 13 Tahun 2006 tentang Perlindungan Saksi dan Korban bagi pengungkap fakta (whistleblower). Penelitian ini bersifat deskriptif analitis melalui pendekatan yuridis normatif dengan mengutamakan data sekunder yang diperoleh melalui studi pustaka kemudian dianalisis secara kualitatif. Hasil Penelitian ini, Pengungkap fakta (whistleblower) dalam tindak pidana korupsi dikenal dalam penegakan hukum di Republik Indonesia yaitu dalam Konteks hukum positif kita, whistleblower menurut Bab II, Pasal 2 ayat (1), PP No. 71 Tahun 2000 tentang Tata Cara Pelaksanaan Peran Masyarakat dan Pemberian Penghargaan Dalam Pencegahan dan Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi, akan tetapi secara yuridis normatif, berdasar Undang-undang No. 13 Tahun 2006 tentang Perlindungan Saksi dan Korban, Pasal 10 ayat (2) menjelaskan bahwa keberadaan Whistleblower tidak mempunyai tempat untuk mendapatkan suatu perlindungan secara hukum. Perlindungan yang diberikan bagi pengungkap fakta (whistleblower) berdasarkan Undang-undang No. 13 Tahun 2006 tentang Perlindungan Saksi dan Korban yakni perlindungan hukum dan perlindungan khusus. Hambatan secara normatif pemberian perlindungan hukum dalam Undang-undang No. 13 Tahun 2006 tentang Perlindungan Saksi dan Korban yakni penerapan prinsip immunitas (Pasal 10 ayat (1)). Asas atau prinsip immunitas (kekebalan) yang diberikan kepada pelapor (whistleblower) merupakan penyimpangan terhadap asas hukum umum yakni penghormatan terhadap asas praduga tidak bersalah. Kata Kunci : Perlindungan Hukum, Saksi, Pidana Korupsi Applicability of Act No. 13 of 2006 on Witness and Victim Protection on August 11, 2006 is considered as a breakthrough which is expected to cover the weaknesses of our legal system with regard to neglect the element of witnesses and victims in the criminal justice system as well as the Criminal Code is more concerned with the rights of the suspect or the accused only to be protected from a variety of possible violation of human rights. Law is more specifically (lex specialis) regulate the terms and procedures for providing protection and assistance to witnesses or victims as a reporter (whistleblower) previously scattered-hoarse in some regulations. This study focused on whether disclosed the fact (whistleblower) in a known corruption in law enforcement in the Republic of Indonesia, Is the legal safeguards that can be given to a witness or victim to reveal a fact (whistleblower) based on Law No. 13 of 2006 on Witness and Victim Protection and What obstacles or constraints contained in Law No. 13 of 2006 on Witness and Victim Protection to reveal a fact (whistleblower). The research was descriptive analytical throuht juridical normative method of approach focusing on secondary data obtained from library study and then were analyzed dualitatively. Results of this study, discloser fact (whistleblower) in a known corruption in law enforcement in the Republic of Indonesia, namely in the context of our positive law, whistleblower according to Chapter II, Article 2, paragraph (1), PP 71 Year 2000 on the Implementation of the Award and the Role of Civil Society in the Prevention and Combating of Corruption, but normative juridical, based on Law No. 13 of 2006 on Witness and Victim Protection, Article 10 paragraph (2) explains that the existence of whistleblower does not have a place to get a legal protection. The protection given to disclosed the fact (whistleblower) based on Law No. 13 of 2006 on the Protection of Witnesses and Victims of legal protection and special protection. Normative obstacles in the provision of legal protection in Law No. No. 13 of 2006 on Protection of Witnesses and Victims of the application of the principle of immunity (Article 10 paragraph (1)). The principle or the principle of immunity granted to the reporting (whistleblower) is a deviation from the general legal principle that respect for the presumption of innocence Keywords: Legal Protection, Witness, Corruptio

President

Reason for Policy 1.1 The University of Manitoba (the “University”) has been designated as a “government body” under the regulations to The Public Interest Disclosure (Whistleblower Protection) Act, C.C.S.M., c.P217 (the "Act"). All government bodies are required to implement Procedures to manage disclosures, as defined by the Act ("Disclosures"). The University desires to meet or exceed the requirements of the Act

Whistleblowing and Good Governance

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) has forever changed corporate governance for publicly held corporations. Recent data suggest that the costs of compliance with the provisions of SOX can be very significant. Problems exist in the government and nonprofit sectors just as they do in the corporate sector. Recent alleged problems at the World Bank include kickbacks, payoffs, bribery, embezzlement, and collusive bidding. In 2002, the United Way scandal came to the public\u27s attention. Its aftermath has had a dramatic impact on fundraising. Even universities are not immune from scandals. Organizations of all kinds should better understand what whistleblowing is, what the components of a whistleblowing policy are, and where to turn for more information. All organizations, including universities, governmental entities, and nonprofits, should consider implementing whistleblowing provisions. The purpose of this article is to increase awareness of the need for whistleblower policies for universities, governmental entities, and nonprofit organizations

Intelligence Whistleblower Protections: In Brief

Intelligence whistleblowers are generally Intelligence Community (IC) employees or contractors who bring to light allegations of agency wrongdoings by, for example, disclosing information on such wrongdoings to congressional intelligence committees. Such disclosures can aid oversight of, or help curb misconduct within, intelligence agencies. However, intelligence whistleblowers could face retaliation from their employers for their disclosures, and the fear of such retaliation may deter whistleblowing. Congress and President Obama have taken measures to protect certain intelligence whistleblowers from retaliation, and thereby seemingly encourage these whistleblowers to disclose information on agency wrongdoing. These measures are the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 (ICWPA), Presidential Policy Directive 19 (PPD-19), and Title VI of the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2014 (Title VI). Each of these measures details what disclosures fall within the scope of its protections, which generally include certain disclosures through government channels (e.g., disclosures to agency inspectors general or congressional intelligence committees). None of these measures protect against retaliation or potential criminal liability arising from disclosures to media sources. The ICWPA applies to both IC employees and contractors, whereas PPD-19 and Title VI appear to apply only to IC employees. The ICWPA is the oldest of the three intelligence whistleblower protections and, of the three, provides the least amount of protection to those falling within its scope. The ICWPA does not explicitly prohibit retaliation against IC whistleblowers. Rather, it outlines procedures through which whistleblowers can disclose to the congressional intelligence committees information on “urgent concerns,” such as violations of law or false statements to Congress. The ICWPA further contains no explicit mechanism for obtaining a remedy for retaliation stemming from disclosure of an urgent concern to Congress. It merely allows an IC whistleblower who has faced an adverse personnel action because he disclosed an urgent concern to the congressional intelligence committees to then use the ICWPA’s disclosure procedures to inform the committees of the retaliation. PPD-19, unlike the ICWPA, expressly prohibits an IC employee from taking an adverse personnel action or security clearance determination against another employee because of a protected disclosure. It additionally requires intelligence agencies to develop procedures for internally investigating, through agency Inspectors General, allegations of impermissible retaliation. After finding that impermissible retaliation has occurred, Inspectors General can recommend that agency heads take corrective action. When an employee has exhausted the internal review procedures that must be established under PPD-19, he can appeal to the Director of National Intelligence, who then has the discretion to convene a review panel. If it finds that improper retaliation occurred, the review panel can recommend that the agency head take remedial action. Title VI seemingly codifies, and expands upon, some of the protections of PPD-19. Its protections, and modes of enforcement, differ depending on the type of retaliation alleged. More specifically, Title VI’s protected disclosures and enforcement methods in the context of allegations of adverse personnel action are distinct from its protected disclosures and enforcement methods for allegations of adverse security clearance or information access determinations

Department of Veterans Affairs FY2017 Appropriations

[Excerpt] The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides a range of benefits and services to veterans and eligible dependents who meet certain criteria as authorized by law. These benefits include medical care, disability compensation and pensions, education, vocational rehabilitation and employment services, assistance to homeless veterans, home loan guarantees, administration of life insurance as well as traumatic injury protection insurance for servicemembers, and death benefits that cover burial expenses. The VA carries out its programs nationwide through three administrations and the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA). The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) is responsible for, among other things, providing compensation, pensions, education assistance, and vocational rehabilitation and employment services. The National Cemetery Administration (NCA) is responsible for maintaining national veterans’ cemeteries; providing grants to states for establishing, expanding, or improving state veterans’ cemeteries; and providing headstones and markers for the graves of eligible persons, among other things. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is responsible for health care services and medical and prosthetic research programs. The VHA is primarily a direct service provider of primary care, specialized care, and related medical and social support services to veterans through the nation’s largest integrated health care system. Inpatient and outpatient care are also provided in the private sector to eligible dependents of veterans under the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA)