| Lake Worth, Florida |
|
|
||
 |
| If you have reported
misconduct to the City of Lake Worth which has not resulted in any
action forward all documentation to our site for posting. Please read
the whistleblower information below so you know the qualifying
criteria. Send your documentation to
info@lakeworthfl.net. *WhistleBlower A whistleblower is an employee, former employee, or member of an organization, especially a business or government agency, who reports misconduct to people or entities that have the power and presumed willingness to take corrective action. Generally the misconduct is a violation of law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest — fraud, health, safety violations, and corruption are just a few examples. For instance, Jeffrey Wigand is well-known in the United States for exposing the Big Tobacco scandal, revealing that executives of the companies knew that cigarettes were addictive and that they added other carcinogenic ingredients to the cigarettes. Wigand was a key participant in "Whistleblower Week In Washington" May 13- 19, 2007. Any kind of misconduct may prompt whistleblowing. The vast majority of cases are based on relatively minor misconduct. The most common type of whistleblowers are internal whistleblowers, who report misconduct to another employee or superior within their company or agency. In contrast, external whistleblowers report misconduct to outside persons or entities. In these cases, depending on the severity and nature of the wrong-doing, whistleblowers may report the misconduct to lawyers, the media, law enforcement or watchdog agencies, or to other local, state, or federal agencies. If the disclosure is specifically prohibited by law or is specifically required by executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense the reporting by a whistleblower might be considered by a few to be treason. However, in the United States, there are not any cases in which the whistleblower has been tried for "treason" and it is not treasonous to blow the whistle on illegal conduct by government officials. And, of course, the vice-versa is true; a whistle blower may also report activities that are treasonous, thus validating the concept of whistle blowing. Moreover, under most U.S. federal whistleblower statutes, in order to be considered a whistleblower the employee must reasonably believe his or her employer has committed a violation of some law, rule or regulation; testify or commence a legal proceeding on the legally protected matter; or refuse to violate the law. There are those who view whistleblowing narrowly and try to limit the impact of whistleblowing by arguing that so-called role-prescribed whistleblowing, for example whistleblowing done by quality control personnel or internal auditors, does not constitute whistleblowing in the traditional sense, because the purpose of the employment is to report such things. However, the U.S. courts have uniformly held that persons who hold quality control or auditor positions are protected from retaliation for reporting violations of law or regulations. There is a false dichotomy between "internal" and "external" whistleblowing, and under U.S. federal law, many courts have failed to distinguish between the two. For example, in the field of federal environmental whistleblowing the federal courts have held that protecting "internal" whistleblowing is wise as a matter of public policy because whistleblower statutes are intended to encourage the free flow of information to prevent violations, "internal" reporting promotes resolving problems at the earliest possible stage, and discouraging "internal" reporting can have disastrous consequences. Ideas about whistleblowing vary widely. Some see whistleblowers as selfless martyrs for public interest and organizational accountability; others view them as 'dobbers' or "snitches" (slang), solely pursuing personal glory and fame. 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 latter view is generally less held. 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. 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 wide-spread "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 [1]. 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. 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 victimization 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. 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. (Congressional Record p. S7412; S. Rep. No. 107-146, 107th Cong., 2d Session 19 (2002).) 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.) 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). 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h). 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 (5 U.S.C. § 1221(e)), 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. * Information source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblowern.
lakeworthfl.net © web site page concept, design and content are for
personal use only. Users are responsible for complying with all
copyright and licensing restrictions associated with data.
Updated 05/27/08
|
