The Whistleblower Act falls under the category of public law. After the intelligence whistleblower`s complaint of alleged inappropriate behavior regarding President Trump`s communications with foreign leaders became public, it was quickly politicized. Many government supporters lobbied for the threat of revelation and violence against the whistleblower. This was a clear example of why privacy is essential for whistleblowers and has been guaranteed by Congress for decades. However, the legal framework that guarantees such anonymity can be confusing. Provisions for the protection of anonymity are not only described in detail in whistleblower laws. There are also government-wide laws that apply to cases of whistleblower disclosure and protection, such as the Data Protection Act of 1974. The Data Protection Act prevents the disclosure of a government employee`s personal data without their consent. This clause would prohibit any government or agency official, even the president, from disclosing the identity of an employee, including whistleblowers. In the event of a violation, civil and criminal penalties would apply to those who disclose the identity of government employees. Specific constitutional safeguards are as follows: The elements of this FAQ may not reflect the latest legal developments.
The content and interpretation of the law in question here are subject to review. We disclaim all responsibility for actions taken or not taken on the basis of all or part of the content of this website or FAQ. Before responding to any information or material on this website, we strongly recommend that you consult a qualified whistleblower lawyer. The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 was enacted to protect federal employees who disclose „government illegality, waste, and corruption” from the negative consequences of their employment. [58] This law provides protection to whistleblowers who may receive a degradation, wage cuts or a replacement employee. In this law, there are certain rules that are civil protection standards against the nullity of dismissal, the nullity of dismissal from posting contracts and discrimination (i.e. downgrading or reduction of salary). The court decides what is or is not considered valid for each claim filed for rejection or deletion. The dispute must be notified to the employer. If there is a union contract, the process described in the contract must be followed. If there is no union agreement, a disagreement with the employer should be discussed directly with the government agencies that protect workers in the area of disagreement. A labour dispute that progresses indescribably begins with a complaint.
When the Whistleblower Protection Act was passed in 1989, it applied only to federal employees in unclassified environments due to national security concerns. In the years that followed, however, a broad framework of laws and implementing regulations governing whistleblowers in the intelligence community emerged, including the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010, Presidential Policy Directive 19 („Protection of Whistleblowers With Access to Classified Information”), and the Intelligence Authorization Act. for the 2014 financial year. There are certain limitations and exceptions to the legal protection of whistleblowers in the United States. With respect to federal legislation, the most comprehensive legislation is the Whistleblower Protection Act. However, the protection only applies to federal employees. Public and private sector employees may be protected by federal laws specific to an issue such as the Occupational Health and Safety Act, but these laws only cover a narrow and specific area of illegal activity. Private sector employees are not protected by federal whistleblower protection laws if they report either violations of federal laws without whistleblower protection or violations of state laws, although they may enjoy some protection from local laws. [97] In 2009, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report concluding that employees who reported illegal activities did not have sufficient protection against retaliation from their employers.
According to data from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, only 21% of the 1800 whistleblowing cases reviewed by the agency in 2007 had „a favorable outcome” for the whistleblower. The GAO noted that the main problems were the lack of resources to investigate employee claims and the legal complexity of whistleblower protection regulations. [98] The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) protects workers, promotes diversity and enforces the law. The OFCCP holds those who do business with the federal government (contractors and subcontractors) accountable for fulfilling the legal obligation to take positive action and not to discriminate on the basis of race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, national origin, disability or protected veteran status. In addition, contractors and subcontractors are prohibited from discussing or otherwise discriminating against candidates or employees who inquire about their remuneration or that of others, subject to certain restrictions. Workers must assert their rights in order to benefit from any form of protection. The WPEA states that whistleblowers do not lose their protection if a disclosure was made to a supervisor while they were off duty, during the employee`s day, or if the misconduct has already been reported. Whistleblowers would also not lose their protection status due to the time that has elapsed since the misconduct or the employee`s reasons for reporting. PPD-19 does not protect contractors from any form of retaliation, with the exception of decisions related to their security clearance, making them vulnerable to termination, retaliatory investigations and prosecutions. [71] According to whistleblower lawyer Mark Zaid, the exclusion of contractors was „a remarkable and manifestly deliberate omission, given the significant number of contractors now working in the intelligence community. This is a gap that needs to be filled urgently, because I often have entrepreneurs who come to me with whistleblower-like concerns and they are the least protected of all.
[73] National security firms had stricter whistleblowing rights under the National Defence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (NDAA), which protected Department of Defence contractors from retaliation. . . .