Whistleblower Lawyer & Attorney : National Whistleblower Legal Defense and Education Fund : Whistlebower Protection, Fraud Claims : Washington DC

Today's Washington Post has an update on the FBI Bullet-Lead debacle. Lee Wayne Hunt , a North Carolina man who has maintained his innocence since being convicted of murder in 1986, is appealing his case to the North Carolina Supreme Court. 

This is not Mr. Hunt's first appeal, but this time he is doing so with the help of information obtained by the National Whistleblower Center's Forensic Justice Project. The FJP's lawsuits against the FBI produced a wealth of documents detailing how thousands of cases, including Mr. Hunt's, were prosecuted on the basis of a faulty forensic science known as bullet-lead analysis.

Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, a former FBI Special Agent and forensic expert, is the Executive Director of the FJP.

• Click here to see the website devoted to the Washington Post / 60 Minutes investigation on Bullet-Lead.
  
• Interested in issues pertaining to whistleblowers? Sign up for our RSS Feeds.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Yesterday, John Solomon of the Washington Post reported that the Senate Judiciary Committee is requiring that the FBI turn over records related to all criminal cases in which bullet-lead analysis was presented as evidence. There are over 2,500 such cases nationwide.

Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, the Executive Director of the Forensic Justice Project (a project of the National Whistleblower Center) has filed three lawsuits against the FBI since 1996 in an effort to obtain release of these records. Unfortunately, the FBI has never been fully compliant with the FJPs FOIA requests, and has engaged in extensive feet-dragging and stonewalling, even so far as demanding that the FJP pay over $70,000 for access to these public records.  

The Senate's action is in response to years of work by the FJP, which led to a joint investigation by the Washington Post and 60 Minutes.

Click here to read the article

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On November 18, 2007, the results of an investigation into the operations of the FBI crime lab were printed in the Washington Post and broadcast on CBS News 60 Minutes. The Forensic Justice Project (“FJP”), a project of the National Whistleblower Center, in Washington, D.C., and FJP Executive Director Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, cooperated with the joint Post-60 Minutes investigation by providing records released by the FBI to FJP and Dr. Whitehurst under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). These FBI FOIA records document the serious misconduct and other problems reported in the joint Post-60 Minutes investigation.

By way of background, since 1996 it has taken no fewer than three separate lawsuits filed on behalf of either Dr. Frederic Whitehurst or the Forensic Justice Project (or both) under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain records regarding FBI Laboratory scandals. In each and every case, the FBI has delayed and stonewalled the release of records documenting misconduct in the FBI Lab, including the problems identified in the Washington Post-60 Minutes investigation.

The FOIA cases are:

1. Whitehurst v. FBI, Civil Action No. 96-572 (GK) (D.D.C.):

This was the original case filed on behalf of Dr. Whitehurst and it alleged that the FBI was refusing to process FOIA requests made on Dr. Whitehurst’s behalf in 1993 and 1995. These requests sought access to records about Dr. Whitehurst’s whistleblower allegations about serious problems in the FBI Lab, which also became the subject of a U.S. Department of Justice Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) review of the FBI Lab. Dr. Whitehurst’s lawsuit also alleged that records about Whitehurst and his allegations that were responsive to the FOIA requests were being selectively released by the FBI to criminal defendants, the courts, members of Congress, but were being denied to Dr. Whitehurst.

On February 5, 1997, Judge Gladys Kessler ordered the FBI to release all records responsive to these requests. See the order here

This lawsuit was later expanded to include Dr. Whitehurst’s FOIA requests for copies of the Justice Department’s OIG report and work product.

Ultimately, this lawsuit was settled and part of the settlement covered granting Dr. Whitehurst a fee waiver and access to thousands of pages of records on his whistleblower allegations and the FBI Lab scandal.

2. Forensic Justice Project v. FBI, Civil Action No. 04-1415 (PLF) (D.D.C.):

This FOIA case against the FBI was filed on behalf of the FJP in 2004 and requested access to records of various FBI Lab examiners who had testified in criminal cases regarding bullet lead. The case against the FBI was settled in March 2006, with the FBI agreeing to grant a fee waiver and provide the FJP with the names of defendants and case numbers of cases in which these examiners testified.

This FOIA case also was filed by the FJP against the DOJ for the records of DOJ Criminal Division Brady Task Force review of the FBI Lab scandal and Dr. Whitehurst’s whistleblower allegations. The FOIA case against DOJ on the Brady Task Force records was settled on December 9, 2005, with the DOJ agreeing to grant a fee waiver to FJP and produce on a rolling basis records from the Brady Task Force review.

The FJP provided all of these records to the Washington Post and these FBI records on bullet lead provided important leads for the Washington Post-60 Minutes investigation.

3. Forensic Justice Project and Whitehurst v. FBI and DOJ, Civil Action No. 06-1001 (RWR) (D.D.C.):

This FOIA action was filed in 2006 and is currently pending. See the Complaint 

The FOIA request was filed with the FBI in September 2005 seeking copies of all records related to the comparative bullet lead cases and records related to the decision to stop using comparative bullet lead analysis that were referred to in a September 2, 2005 FBI press release. See the Original FOIA Request With FBI Press Release Attached

The FBI has refused to grant a fee waiver forcing the FJP and Dr. Whitehurst to appeal and then go to court. Reporter John Solomon of the Washington Post also wrote a letter informing the FBI and DOJ that he was interested in reviewing the records requested by FJP and Whitehurst. In February 2007 the FBI acknowledged that there exist approximately 250,000 records responsive to this request but the FBI demands that Dr. Whitehurst and the FJP pay approximately $70,000 to process this FOIA request.

The records responsive to this request are the actual case file records for all of the comparative bullet lead cases handled by the FBI Lab based on flawed science prior to the FBI’s decision to stop using comparative bullet lead analysis in criminal cases. In its September 2, 2005 Press Release, the FBI itself identified more than 500 cases where convictions were obtained using the scientifically flawed comparative bullet lead analysis. In addition, the FBI identified thousands of other criminal cases where comparative bullet lead analysis had been used prior to its discontinuance.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The entry below is a special contribution from Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, the Executive Director of the Forensic Justice Project (a special project of the National Whistleblower Center)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The justice system needs answers, and science never comes up with final answers. Science often discovers that previous answers to questions were not valid. When forensic science renders opinions in courts of law that are in the future found to be no longer valid, such as in the case of bullet-lead analysis, then we have no mechanisms to revisit the cases where people were unfairly accused. The FBI and the DOJ have for the past nine years strongly resisted efforts by the Forensic Justice Project to determine the names of those defendants who were treated unfairly as a result of bad forensic science.

One would assume that the reason for this lack of cooperation would be the perceived liability from discovery of falsely accused individuals who have spent years, possibly decades, incarcerated after being falsely accused by forensic science. Whatever the reason, Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation take an oath of office before receipt of their badges and credentials. That oath includes their willingness to enforce the law and uphold the US Constitution. That oath means that citizens become more important to FBI Agents than those agents are to themselves. It would seem that the US Department of Justice would agressively seek to protect the safety of all citizens, regardless of the source of any harm coming to those citizens. And therefore when the FBI Crime Laboratory makes mistakes and those mistakes harm US citizens, the FBI and the US DOJ should aggressively pursue making those citizens aware that they have been tried unfairly and offer any assistance necessary to make those citizens whole. The last thing the US DOJ should do is what has been done, to aggressively stop parties from discovery of those citizens harmed. It is obvious that the US DOJ does not have the assets or moral fiber needed to function fairly in this way. Therefore private citizen groups need to acquire the information from investigative files and make that information available and assist individuals who have been harmed by bad forensic science from the FBI Lab or any other crime lab.

Following revelations in 1997 of wrong doing and invalid science at the FBI Crime Lab, the Forensic Justice Project set about determining those individuals who had been harmed. With the mantra, "Stop It, Fix It, and Find Out Who Was Harmed" the Forensic Justice Project acquired a vast amount of information to determine the real reasons for the perceived problems. FJP makes that information available to parties all over the world, looking only for feedback of information from the recipients. The model built has been one of acquiring transcripts, data, lab reports and other information in order to determine the real issues associated with "bad" forensic science. Going beyond the simple "He said, She said" arguments that get nowhere, FJP has acquired the underlying data for open review. The team built around any issue involves criminal defense attorneys (who provide transcripts of testimony and laboratory work product), aggressive Freedom of Information inquiries, scientists who have been willing to provide a great deal of research resulting in papers written in the scientific literature, and victim defendants who are more than willing to share all of their data.

The project works on a shoe-string budget with individual participants conducting their individual parts on a pro-bono basis.

Dr. Frederic Whitehurst
Executive Director
Forensic Justice Project

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Washington Post-60 Minutes investigation, published in today's Washington Post, has confirmed that the convictions of hundreds of defendants have come into question because a bullet-lead analysis used for 40 years has been discredited and the FBI has failed for more than 2 years to properly notify those convicted about these problems. Read The Article 

Later tonight, after the 60 Minutes special begins, you can visit this blog for further information on the bullet-lead issue. We will have original documents from the FOIA lawsuit, as well as blog posts from former FBI Crime Lab whistleblower (and Executive Director of the Forensic Justice Project) Dr. Frederic Whitehurst and the General Counsel for the National Whistleblower Center, David Colapinto.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This Sunday, The Washington Post and 60 Minutes will be breaking a major story detailing appalling injustices committed by the FBI. This story has been over 10 years in the making, and is the direct product of work done by the National Whistleblower Center. We urge you to read Sunday’s Post and watch 60 Minutes on Sunday night for more details.

Then, after the show …

Come back to this blog where Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, the original FBI whistleblower whose shocking disclosures were the impetus for many of the so-called “reforms” in the FBI Crime Lab, will be posting his thoughts on the current scandal. Dr. Whitehurst is now the Executive Director of the Forensic Justice Project.

Also blogging will be David Colapinto, the General Counsel of the National Whistleblower Center. Dave has been representing whistleblowers (including Dr. Whitehurst) for over 20 years.

Stay Tuned!

Click here to see 60 Minutes’ article about the upcoming show

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I call it the two crash rule: It takes two disasters for Congress to protect whistleblowers.

For example, for years airline pilots pleaded for Congress to enact modest protections for airline employees who exposed safety concerns. Year in and year out legislation was introduced, but stalled or was ignored. Then, in 2000, two Alaskan Airlines jets crashed. Only after two plane crashes were the whistleblower protections enacted. The same story holds true for almost every other federal whistleblower law. Disasters prompted action – but in each case the legislative response was limited to fixing the crisis at hand.

How many more disasters are needed to provide real whistleblower protection for all American workers? How many more billions lost in various schemes (such as the home mortgage fiasco)? How many tainted products will be imported into America? How many more taxpayer dollars will be wasted or swindled by contractors in Iraq?

Since January, 2007 numerous whistleblower protection laws have been introduced into Congress. But since the Democratic takeover of Congress only one whistleblower protection proposal has actually passed. This law provides enhanced protections for truck and bus drivers who complain about safety risks.

Obviously, truck drivers need whistleblower protection, but what about the tens of millions of employees who remain completely unprotected?

Congress needs to enact a comprehensive national whistleblower protection law, a law which will provide all legitimate whistleblowers with adequate legal protections.

Below is the list of whistleblower protection laws are currently pending in Congress. They all deserve our support. But why has no member of Congress introduced a national whistleblower protection act, which would protect all honest employees who expose violations of law or threats to the public safety? Why are most whistleblowers still without any adequate protection under federal law? When will Congress finally act?

Here is a list of the major whistleblower protection proposals introduced into Congress since January, 2007. As of today, none of these laws have passed:

• CPSC Reform Act of 2007, S.2045, Section 22 (Consumer safety whistleblower protection).
  
• SAFE Drug Act, H.R.1165, Section 3 (Drug safety whistleblower protection).
  
• The Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act of 2007, H.R.785, Section 1026, and S.461, Section 1026 (whistleblower protections for judicial branch employees).
  
• The Whistleblower Recovery Act of 2007, H.R.3180 (closing loophole in order to protect employees who expose fraud on the U.S. taxpayers).
  
• The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007, H.R.985 (federal employee whistleblower protection).
  
• Nurse and Patient Safety and Protection Act of 2007, H.R.378, SEC. 4(d) (providing whistleblower protection for the disclosure patient abuse).
  
• Consumer Food Safety Act of 2007, H.R. 3624, SEC. 419 (Food safety whistleblower protections)
  
• Safe Food Act of 2007, S. 654, SEC. 407 (Food safety whistleblower protections)
  
• Federal Employee Protection Act, S. 274 (modest protection for a limited class of federal employee whistleblowers)
  
• U.S. Troop Readiness, Veteran’s Health, and Iraq Accountability Act, 2007, H.R. 1591, SEC. 543 and the Small Business and Work Opportunity Act of 2007, S. 349, SEC. 213 (whistleblower protection regarding disclosure of tax fraud).
  
• Private Sector Whistleblower Protection Streamlining Act of 2007, H.R. 4047 (protections for private sector employees).
  
• National Defense Authorization Act, FY 2008, S. 1548, sec. 861 (Defense contractor protections).
  
• False Claims Act Correction Act of 2007, S. 2041 (closing loopholes in False Claims Act which currently permit corrupt federal contractors to escape liability).

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

What laws cover the alleged retaliation?

The first step in reviewing a whistleblower claim is to determine what statutes or common law actions may provide a remedy. A case may be covered under more than one whistleblower protection provision. Depending upon whom one works for and in which state one is employed, the nature and scope of whistleblower protection is varied. In addition to explicit whistleblower protection laws, employees may also be protected under traditional tort or contract for damages resulting from retaliation for whistleblowing.

The National Whistleblower Center has released a comprehensive publication of all Federal whistleblower laws and regulations. This book is offered on their website as a free download for whistleblowers and their political and legal advocates. Donations are urged, and commercial users are required to pay $120. 

What is protected whistleblower activity?

The underlying purpose of whistleblower protection laws is to allow employees to stop, report, or testify about employer actions which are illegal, unhealthy, or violate specific public policies. However, one of the most hotly contested issues in whistleblower law is the exact definition of protected whistleblower activity. Some states have very narrow definitions while others are very broad. An employee or his or her attorney should thoroughly research the state law regarding the definition for his or her state.

How long are the statutes of limitations?

One major weakness in many statutory whistleblower protection laws is the short statute of limitations. Failure to comply with a statute of limitations is one of the favorite defenses in whistleblower cases, and the statute is generally held to start at the time an employee learns that he or she will be retaliated against- not the last day of employment. Each state has its own statute of limitations for common law wrongful termination actions. Federal statutes protecting whistleblowers also have their own statutes of limitations, some as short as thirty days.

What are the remedies?

The decision on how to pursue the claim will determine what statute of limitations is applicable, the types of damages that are recoverable, and in what forum the claim will be adjudicated. In some states, if the employee is covered by a federal statute, the employee may be preempted from bringing a state action. Some employees have filed for both administrative and common law remedies. Although this approach has been successful, it raises other issues besides preemption, such as res judicata and collateral estoppel. The employee should use extreme care in determining the pros and cons of each potential strategy.

What is a basic prima facie case?

The following elements are the basic components of most whistleblower protection claims: 

1. that the plaintiff is an employee or person covered under the specific statutory or common law relied upon for action;
2. that the defendant is an employer or person covered under the specific statutory or common law relied upon for the action; 
3. that the plaintiff engaged in protected whistleblower activity; 
4. that the defendant knew or had knowledge that the plaintiff engaged in such activity; 
5. that retaliation against the employee was motivated, at least in part, by the employee engaging in protected activity; 
6. that plaintiff was discharged or otherwise discriminated against with respect to his or her compensation, terms, conditions or privileges or employment; or suffered some other wrong actionable under state tort or contract theory; 
7. that the plaintiff can demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she would not have been subject to an adverse action in the absence of protected conduct.
   

How does an employee prove discriminatory motive?

The following general categories of facts or circumstances are used to establish a reasonable inference that the discharge was discriminatory:

• employer's hostile attitude toward matter underlying employee's protected conduct; 
• employer's knowledge of protected conduct;
• nature of protected conduct; 
• special conditions of employment following protected conduct and leading up to discharge; 
• disparate treatment of discharged employee prior to protected conduct; 
• previous expressions of satisfaction with work record; 
• disparate treatment of similarly situated employees; 
• termination procedure; 
• timing of discharge; and 
• threats or retaliation against other employees for similar conduct.

Other factors which have been used successfully to establish circumstantial evidence of discriminatory motive are:

• high work performance ratings prior to engaging in protected activity, and low ratings or "problems" thereafter; 
• manner in which the employee was informed of his or her transfer or termination; 
• inadequate investigation of the charge against the employee; 
•  discipline, transfer, or termination shortly after employee engaged in protected activity; 
•  the magnitude of the alleged offense; 
•  absence of previous complaints against employee; 
•  differences in the way complainant and other employees were treated; 
•  determination that the employee was not guilty of violating work rule charged under, and 
•  charges of "disloyalty" against an employee for engaging in protected activity.

These issues and others are discussed in greater detail in Concepts and Procedures in Whistleblower Law; (Quorum, 2000). For more information about this and other whistleblower publications, please visit the National Whistleblower Center’s publications page.

If you are a whistleblower seeking legal representation, please fill out our Attorney Referral Service / Report Fraud Now form.

• Print

Warning regarding litigation under the False Claims Act

The False Claims Act has one of the strongest whistleblower protection provisions in the United States. However, it has many complicated components and requirements which can harm any person that pursues such a claim without counsel. Due to the potential for a significant financial recovery, it is usually possible to retain an attorney for such an action. If, after reviewing this section, you believe that you may have an action arising under the False Claims Act and need an attorney, please complete our Attorney Referral Service / Report Fraud Now form.

What is the False Claims Act (Qui tam)?

The False Claims Act is 31 U.S.C. Sections 3729 through 3733. Qui tam, under the False Claims Act, allows persons and entities with evidence of fraud against federal programs or contracts to sue the wrongdoer on behalf of the United States Government. In Qui tam actions, the government has the right to intervene and join the action. If the government declines, the private plaintiff may proceed on his or her own. Some states have passed similar laws concerning fraud in state government contracts.

What Actions Are Considered Violations under the False Claims Act?

• Knowingly presenting (or causing to be presented) to the federal government a false or fraudulent claim for payment 
• Knowingly using (or causing to be used) a false record or statement to get a claim paid by the federal government 
• Conspiring with others to get a false or fraudulent claim paid by the federal government 
• Knowingly using (or causing to be used) a false record or statement to conceal, avoid, or decrease an obligation to pay money or transmit property to the federal government.
  

Who Can File a Qui tam Action?

Any persons or entities with evidence of fraud against federal programs or contracts may file a Qui tam lawsuit. If the government or a private party has already filed a False Claims Act lawsuit based on the same evidence as you, you cannot bring a lawsuit.

Where Should a Qui tam Action Be Filed?

A qui tam action must be confidentially filed under seal in federal district court in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A copy of the complaint, with a written disclosure statement of substantially all material evidence and information in the plaintiff's possession, must be confidentially served on the U.S. Attorney General and the U.S. Attorney for the district in which the complaint is brought. An action under the False Claims Act must be filed, in camera and under seal. The complaint and its contents must be kept confidential until the seal is lifted. The complaint is not served on the defendant. If the plaintiff violates the provisions of the seal, his or her complaint could be dismissed.

What Are the Civil Penalties Under the False Claims Act?

Violators of the False Claims Act are liable for three times the dollar amount that the government is defrauded and civil penalties of $5,000 to $10,000 for each false claim.

A qui tam plaintiff can receive between 15 and 30 percent of the total recovery from the defendant, whether through a favorable judgment or settlement. To be eligible to recover money under the Act, you must file a qui tam lawsuit. Merely informing the government about the violation is not enough. You only receive an award if, and after, the government recovers money from the defendant as a result of your suit.

What Are the Statutes Of Limitations for Filing a Qui Tam Lawsuit?

Under the False Claims Act, an action must be filed within the later of the following two time periods:

1. Six years from the date of the violation of the Act; or 
2. Three years after the government knows or should have known about the violation, but in no event longer than ten years after the violation of the Act.

(One Circuit Court has interpreted the second provision as requiring that the action be filed not later than three years after the qui tam plaintiff rather than the government knows, or should have known about the violation.)

What Are the Whistleblower Protection Provisions in the False Claims Act?

Under Section 3730(h) of the False Claims Act, any employee who is discharged, demoted, harassed, or otherwise discriminated against because of lawful acts by the employee in furtherance of an action under the Act is entitled to all relief necessary to make the employee whole. Such relief may include:

• Reinstatement 
• Double back pay 
• Compensation for any special damages including litigation costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

You should be aware, however, that the scope of whistleblower protection under Section 3730(h) is an issue that currently divides the courts.

Many states have wrongful discharge or other employment laws that may provide other remedies for such discrimination.

The Statute of Limitation for filing a FCA retaliation case is different then that for filing a qui tam recovery case. Retaliation case must be filed under the statute of limitation applicable to the similar state wrongful discharge action.

What about State False Claims Acts?

Due to the success of the Federal False Claims Act, a growing number of states including New York, California, and Virginia, have enacted State versions of the False Claims Act. These laws permit whistleblowers to recover a “finders fee” for reporting fraud in state, local and municipal contracting.

What about Tax Fraud?

In 2006, Congress amended the Internal Revenue Code to permit whistleblower to obtain a reward for reporting tax fraud.

How can I get help?

If you need to speak to an attorney, you can contact us using the NWLDEF’s Attorney Referral Service / Report Fraud Now form.

• Print

What is the Freedom of Information Act?

FOIA, also known as 5 U.S.C. 522, was passed in 1966 and amended in 1974. It allows the public better access to government records. With these records, the public can find out what the government knows about them and what types of policies agencies use to govern the public.

FOIA is a valuable tool for whistleblowers as they obtain records that they would not be able to obtain otherwise.

What does the law call for?

The law is actually broken up into two parts: The first part calls for all government agencies to publish the following in the Federal Registrar:

• Descriptions of an agencies central and field organization and the established places at which, the employees (and in the case of a uniformed service, the members) from whom, and the methods whereby, the public may obtain information, make requests, or obtain decisions 
• Statements of the general course and method by which its functions are channeled and determined, including the nature and requirements of all formal and informal procedures available; 
• Rules of procedure, descriptions of forms available or the places at which forms may be obtained, and instructions as to the scope and contents of all papers, reports, or examinations; 
• Substantive rules of general applicability adopted as authorized by law, and statements of general policy or interpretations of general applicability formulated and adopted by the agency; and 
• Each amendment, revision, or repeal of the foregoing final orders of administrative cases, federal government agency statements of policy, manuals used by an agency's staff whose policies within apply to the public, and indexes of materials that can be accessed by the public.

While these sections may seem confusing, the second part of the law is what makes it one of the best pieces of legislation passed on behalf of the American Public. The law allows for the public to view the records of agencies. Anyone can find out how an agency is spending its money, the reasoning behind their policies, and the intended effect of the agencies policies.

What are considered records?

• Final decisions in particular administrative cases
• Policy statements that the agency uses, but hasn't published in the Federal Register,
• Internal manuals written for the agency's staff that affect members of the public
• An index of the kinds of information that must be made public.

The law also allows the public to see other types of records that were not enumerated above and the courts have interpreted this broadly.

How is an Agency Defined?

Agencies are defined as agencies that have executive position of the cabinet, independent regulatory committee (like the Federal Communication Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission), and corporations that are owned by the federal government like the U.S. Postal Service and Amtrak. However the following are exceptions to FOIA:

• Laws passed by Congress
• Federal court decisions
• Records of agencies that are part of the executive branch whose sole purpose is to advise the President.

Other restrictions of the law deal with the types of information that are exempt from the FOIA. These exemptions are:

• National Security Information
• Internal Agency Rules
• Information Exempted by Other Statues
• Business Information
• Inter-and Intra- Agency Memoranda
• Personal Privacy Information
• Law Enforcement Records/Ongoing Investigations
• Records of Financial Institutions
• Oil Well Data

How do I start my FOIA request?

If you would like to request records under the FOIA, you must submit it in writing to the appropriate agency. All agencies have a freedom of information officer who processes the requests. The letter must be as clear as possible stating what information you are requesting and the purpose of the information. Several common types for requests are:

• Commercial Use
• Private Information Use
• Scientific or Educational Use
• Mass Media Use

What are some tips to expedite my request?

Try to limit your request to only the information that you want. If you tell the agency that you just want everything ever related to the subject, you might give the agency an excuse to delay its response, or deny it flat out. Some other tips are: 

• If you know that your request involves a great volume of records, try to state both what your request includes and what it does not include.
• Be as specific as possible. Cite relevant newspaper clips, articles, congressional reports, etc. If the records have already been released, let the agency know the date, release number, and name of the original requester. 
• Let the agency know if you'd like to receive information in a particular order. Materials could be reviewed and released to you in chronological or geographical order - or you may simply not want to wait for all the records to be reviewed before any are released.

Does it cost anything to complete a FOIA request?

Many of the agencies charge costs related to the search for the materials desired. The three types of charges are 

1. Charges to search for the requested information
2. Costs related to deciding what information to include in your request
3. Reproduction related fees.

The types of costs you pay will depend on why you are requesting the information. Your costs can be reduced, for example, if the information is for public distribution versus commercial use. Each agency has to tell you how much these costs are before your request is processed.

If you feel you should not be obligated to pay the related fees, you can ask for a fee waiver in your request. Agencies may grant fee waivers if the requested information is to be publicly disseminated. How long does it take to process a FOIA request?

By law, the agency has to respond to your request within ten days. However agencies can take up to an additional ten days due to backlog or difficulties in finding the information you are requesting. If all or part of your request is denied then you may file a FOIA appeal. Agencies have 20 days to respond to your appeal. The agency will send you a letter acknowledging your appeal and your case will be assigned a number. If they do not respond in those 20 days, you have a right to take your claim to federal district court. However, if after the first response you still have not received any of your requested documents, the agency must send you a letter stating the reason for the delay.

Where do I send my request?

As stated above, each agency has an office or an officer dedicated to processing FOIA requests. A good place to find which agency you should be requesting is government publications which list offices or many government web sites have pages dedicated to FOIA requests.

What should my FOIA Request look like? 

Click to view a sample FOIA Request

Click to view a sample FOIA Appeal

Where can I find more information?

Related Links:

Bill Text of the Freedom of Information Act

E.P.A FOIA Web Page

F.B.I. FOIA Web Page 

U.S. Department of Justice FOIA page

U.S. Department of Labor FOIA page

• Print

What Federal Laws Protect Nuclear Whistleblowers?

Whistleblowers in the nuclear power and nuclear weapons industries are specifically protected under section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act.

Who Is Protected?

Private sector employees and federal employees working for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or the Department of Energy.

Who Can File a Complaint?

Any employee who believes he or she has been discriminated against in retaliation for "blowing the whistle" on a nuclear safety problem.

What is Illegal Discrimination?

Almost any adverse change to the whistleblower's terms and conditions of employment is prohibited. This includes a wide range of actions from reprimands to terminations and blacklisting.

Where Should Complaints Be Filed?

These laws are administered by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). Complaints must be filed in writing and should be filed with the local OSHA Office of the DOL and/or mailed to:

U.S. Department of Labor
Office of the Assistant Secretary
Occupational Safety and Health Administration - Room: S2315
200 Constitution Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20210
(202) 693-2000

What Are the Statutes Of Limitations?

A nuclear industry employee filing a complaint under the Energy Reorganization Act must file within 180 days.

Do Other Laws Protect Whistleblowers?

Many states have enacted laws to protect whistleblowers. Most of these laws have a longer statue of limitations and other benefits unavailable under federal law. If an employee is reporting fraud by a government contractor, these concerns may be covered under the False Claims Act. To report these concerns, please fill out our confidential Attorney Referral / Report Fraud Now form.

Can I file in Federal Court?

The Atomic Energy Act was recently amended to permit employees to file claims in federal court if the DOL fails to issue its final decision within one year.

What remedies are available to employees under the Sarbanes Oxley whistleblower law?

• Reinstatement
• Backpay with interest
• A complete “make whole” remedy (including restoration of seniority/sick leave, etc)
• Compensatory damages (for emotional distress and loss of professional reputation)
• Attorneys’ fees and costs
• “Affirmative Relief” (such as requiring a letter of apology and formal posting of the decision)

Exemplary damages are available under the Safe Drinking Water Act and Toxic Substances Control Act.

To view a major decision on damages in a nuclear case, see Hobby v. Georgia Power Co.

• Print

What Federal Laws Protect Environmental Whistleblowers?

Seven major federal environmental laws (Clean Air, Toxic Substances, Clean Water, Atomic Energy, Solid Waste, Safe Drinking Water and Superfund) have special provisions protecting employee whistleblowers.

Who Is Protected?

Almost any private sector or federal employee can be protected.

Who Can File a Complaint?

Any employee who believes he or she has been discriminated against in retaliation for "blowing the whistle" on a safety problem or environmental violation, or for engaging in other activity protected under the law.

What is Illegal Discrimination?

Adverse changes to the whistleblower's terms and conditions of employment are prohibited. This includes a wide range of actions from reprimands to terminations and blacklisting.

Where Should I File a Complaint?

These laws are administered by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). Complaints must be filed in writing and should be mailed to:

U.S. Department of Labor
Office of the Assistant Secretary
Occupational Safety and Health Administration - Room: S2315
200 Constitution Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20210
(202) 693-2000

What Are the Statutes Of Limitations?

A Complaint under six of the environmental statutes must be filed with the DOL in writing within 30 days of the time an employees learns that he or she will be, or has been, subjected to discrimination, harassment or retaliation.

Do Other Laws Protect Whistleblowers?

Many states have enacted laws to protect whistleblowers. Most of these laws have a longer statue of limitations and other benefits unavailable under federal law.

The National Whistleblower Center, as a matter of public service, has published a compilation of all Federal laws and regulations protecting whistleblowers. This book is available on the National Whistleblower Centers' publication site as a free download for whistleblowers and their political and legal advocates. Donations are recommended, and commercial users are required to purchase the book for $120.

What remedies are available to employees under the environmental whistleblower statutes?

Employees who prevail are entitled to:

• Reinstatement
• Backpay with interest
• A complete “make whole” remedy (including restoration of seniority/sick leave, etc)
• Compensatory damages (for emotional distress and loss of professional reputation)
• Attorneys’ fees and costs
• Affirmative Relief” (such as requiring a letter of apology and formal posting of the decision)
  
  

• Print

What Federal laws protect whistleblowers who report corporate fraud?

In 2002, Congress passed the historic Sarbanes-Oxley Act which protects employees of publicly traded companies who report violations of Securities and Exchange Commission regulations or any provision of federal law relating to fraud against the shareholders.

Who is protected?

Employees of publicly traded companies and contractors, subcontractors, and agencies of publicly traded companies.

What is “protected activity?”

The Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower law broadly defines protected activity to include reports made to federal regulatory and law enforcement agencies, Congress, an employee’s supervisor, internal corporate investigators. The law also protects employees who participate or testify in SEC regulatory proceedings or other federal proceedings related to fraud against shareholders.

What is illegal discrimination?

Adverse changes to the whistleblowers terms and conditions of employment are prohibited. This includes a wide range of actions from reprimands to termination and blacklisting.

Where should complaints be filed?

U.S. Department of Labor
Office of the Assistant Secretary
Occupational Safety and Health Administration - Room: S2315
200 Constitution Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20210
(202) 693-2000

What is the statute of limitations?

A complaint filed under the SOX whistleblower law must be filed with the Department of Labor in writing within 90 days of the time an employee learns that he or she will be, or has been, subjected to discrimination, harassment, or retaliation.

What remedies are available to employees under the Sarbanes Oxley whistleblower law?

Employees who prevail are entitled to

• Reinstatement
• Backpay with interest
• a complete “make whole” remedy (including restoration of seniority/sick leave, etc)
• “Special Damages” (for emotional distress and loss of professional reputation)*
• Attorneys’ fees and costs
• “Affirmative Relief” (such as requiring a letter of apology and formal posting of the decision)

*If an employee is seeking “special damages,” that relief should be requested in their initial complaint.

Do other laws protect corporate whistleblowers?

Many other federal and state laws have been enacted laws to protect whistleblowers. The National Whistleblower Center has produced several publications which outline these laws, some of which are offered as free downloads for whistleblowers and their advocates. For more information, visit the NWC publication page.

Also, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration operates an informative site for whistleblowers here.

• Print