The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 provides federal whistleblowers with new safeguards. It upgrades existing protections for federal employees contained in the 1989 whistleblower act for those who witness and report waste, fraud, or abuse on the job. It has been hailed as a long overdue change. In 2007, there was an earlier attempt to strengthen the 1989 law. But this was held up in the Senate. The 2012 statute succeeds where its earlier predecessor failed.
The shield provided in these laws is applicable to a majority of the federal workforce. Its protections are applicable where a disclosure covered by the law is made by a worker belonging to a protected class. There are basically 4 procedural avenues where such protection becomes relevant. One is an appeal made to the Merit Systems Protection Board venue. An individually right of action can be maintained before the MSPB. This may be filed when an employee faces retaliation. A different venue is the Office of Special Counsel. This agency can proceed against any source which retaliates. Another option is when a grievance claim is filed with a grievance forum for negotiated remedies. Most negotiated agreements provide for a grievance procedure venue for dispute resolution.
The new law makes the range of protected disclosures more clear. Requirements for nondisclosure agreements are tightened. Penalties for violating protections are expanded. A new ombudsman position in select agencies is to be established. Government watchdogs have pointed out that it took 13 years to pass as government managers and their supporters repeatedly blocked the passage of the bill through technical obfuscation.
There are a number of improvements reflected in this law. One of the improvements is that the standard of proof bar needed to receive protection has been lowered. It closes loopholes which weakened the original Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989. The Office of Special Counsel may now discipline employers more easily and compensatory awards will reward certain successful whistleblowers.
The compensation covered by the 2012 statute is distinct from rewards available to certain private whistleblowers. The SEC already compensates disclosure of wrong doing in the private sector. Other disclosers under the False Claims Act who bring Qui Tam cases may be rewarded in actions against companies who have engaged in fraudulent schemes against the federal government.
The new improvements should provide more comfort and support to whistleblowers that elect to sacrifice their own job security for ethics. The existing systemic environment had not provided sufficient support. In fact it had made things harder. The result was that retaliation chilled further disclosures.
Amongst procedural issues that have been resolved are opening up more court appeal avenues and the funding of the Office of Special Counsel. The OSC is empowered to investigate cases and prosecute when allegations of prohibited personnel practices have been made by federal employees. This includes allegations of whistleblower retaliation. It may seek disciplinary or corrective action when warranted under its judgment.
The DC Court of Appeals is not the sole judicial venue any longer, when administrative appeals have been exhausted. This is a positive change as the court was a discouraging forum. It had consistently interpreted the existing law almost universally in favor of government employers and against whistleblowers. The OSC will be saved from litigation cost deductions in its budget for any lost cases. This chare had previously discouraged the agency from accepting such cases. In sum, disclosing improper or illegal activities will no longer be held back as before. The enhancements in the whistleblower act should encourage more disclosers of such activity.
The shield provided in these laws is applicable to a majority of the federal workforce. Its protections are applicable where a disclosure covered by the law is made by a worker belonging to a protected class. There are basically 4 procedural avenues where such protection becomes relevant. One is an appeal made to the Merit Systems Protection Board venue. An individually right of action can be maintained before the MSPB. This may be filed when an employee faces retaliation. A different venue is the Office of Special Counsel. This agency can proceed against any source which retaliates. Another option is when a grievance claim is filed with a grievance forum for negotiated remedies. Most negotiated agreements provide for a grievance procedure venue for dispute resolution.
The new law makes the range of protected disclosures more clear. Requirements for nondisclosure agreements are tightened. Penalties for violating protections are expanded. A new ombudsman position in select agencies is to be established. Government watchdogs have pointed out that it took 13 years to pass as government managers and their supporters repeatedly blocked the passage of the bill through technical obfuscation.
There are a number of improvements reflected in this law. One of the improvements is that the standard of proof bar needed to receive protection has been lowered. It closes loopholes which weakened the original Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989. The Office of Special Counsel may now discipline employers more easily and compensatory awards will reward certain successful whistleblowers.
The compensation covered by the 2012 statute is distinct from rewards available to certain private whistleblowers. The SEC already compensates disclosure of wrong doing in the private sector. Other disclosers under the False Claims Act who bring Qui Tam cases may be rewarded in actions against companies who have engaged in fraudulent schemes against the federal government.
The new improvements should provide more comfort and support to whistleblowers that elect to sacrifice their own job security for ethics. The existing systemic environment had not provided sufficient support. In fact it had made things harder. The result was that retaliation chilled further disclosures.
Amongst procedural issues that have been resolved are opening up more court appeal avenues and the funding of the Office of Special Counsel. The OSC is empowered to investigate cases and prosecute when allegations of prohibited personnel practices have been made by federal employees. This includes allegations of whistleblower retaliation. It may seek disciplinary or corrective action when warranted under its judgment.
The DC Court of Appeals is not the sole judicial venue any longer, when administrative appeals have been exhausted. This is a positive change as the court was a discouraging forum. It had consistently interpreted the existing law almost universally in favor of government employers and against whistleblowers. The OSC will be saved from litigation cost deductions in its budget for any lost cases. This chare had previously discouraged the agency from accepting such cases. In sum, disclosing improper or illegal activities will no longer be held back as before. The enhancements in the whistleblower act should encourage more disclosers of such activity.
About the Author:
You can visit the website www.hboischsolutions.com for more helpful information about The Whistleblower Act Buttressed With New Law
0 comments:
Post a Comment