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

Today Lindsey Williams and I spoke with the Executive Board of Local 689, Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU).Local 689 represents employees of Washington DC's Metro system. Lindsey is the Advocacy Director of the National Whistleblowers Center (NWC). We spoke about the National Transit System Security Act (NTSSA) of 2007, 6 USC §1142.

I have been looking forward to this opportunity for a long time. For too long, I have read local media stories about how Metro employees were too afraid of retaliation to raise concerns about safety. This can't be right, I thought.  There is a new law designed specifically to protect transit workers from retaliation.  It was a law that came out of a concern for the role that safe public transit plays in our national security.  Congress passed it as part of enacting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

You can read the FAQ I prepared on NTSSA, together with my collection of web links, newspaper stories and blog posts. Everyone on the Board signed up for the NWC's Action Alerts. In our discussion, we noticed that NTSSA could be the sole remedy for transit workers who are fired during their probationary period for refusing to drive in unsafe conditions. Also, union grievances can be faster than the Department of Labor process. Still, it was obvious to all of us that workers' advocates need to know about all the tools in the belt to decide which ones might be best for any particular case. We agreed to continue talking about steward training to make sure that all Metro employees learn about their NTSSA rights when they face retaliation. I thank Jackie Jeter, President of Local 689, for the invitation to speak.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Fair Game is a new feature movie about the Valerie Plame affair. Naomi Watts plays Valerie Plame. Sean Penn plays her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson. I am having trouble containing how much I appreciate this movie, so let me start with the facts:
In the buildup for the Iraq War, the Bush Administration was eager to claim that Saddam Hussein was building nuclear weapons. At the time, Valerie Plame was an undercover operative for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) working on counterproliferation. She was running operations around the world to find reliable sources of information about the funding and development of weapons of mass destruction. She has developed a most sensitive source to get information from an Iraqi scientist. Her bosses ask her if she can get her husband to help them check out a claim that Saddam was buying yellow cake uranium from Niger – one of the poorest countries in the world. Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, knew the area and had contacts in Niger. He agrees to check it out. The amount of uranium at issue would have filled a convoy of trucks. It would have been noticed by everyone around and left a long paper trail. Wilson goes to Niger, visits his contacts, talks to the witnesses, and inspects the records. Nothing indicates any sale to Iraq. He makes his report. Then he is stunned to hear President Bush claim in the 2003 State of the Union Address that, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Joe Wilson (pictured with staff and interns of the National Whistleblowers Center) checks out whether President Bush could have been referring to any other African country other than Niger. He learns that the White House staff was relying on the same report that Wilson himself had checked out. He learns that the White House took out the claim from a speech President Bush gave in Cincinnati, but it popped back into the State of the Union Address. After the US invades Iraq, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice claims that if anyone in the government had reason to doubt the President's claim about Saddam's uranium, then it would have to be some staffer in the bowels of the CIA. Wilson knew this was wrong, and he felt compelled to call on his government to redress it.

• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A "key logger" is a computer program that keeps a record of every keystroke someone types on a computer. Hackers can use key loggers to infiltrate a computer system, or to steal someone's identity. They might use a key logger as part of a computer virus, and once a computer is infected, the hacker can receive a report of every keystroke entered from that computer -- passwords, Social Security Numbers, content, anything.

Now, some employers are having key loggers installed on all their computers so they can monitor what their employees are doing. What better way is there to find out who the whistleblower is, and what that whistleblower is reporting? Don't think that just because you work for a small employer, you should be protected from such snooping. Key loggers can be installed by any employer who knows how to call a computer technician who can install it.

I recently learned about an employee who used an office computer to renew a vehicle registration. Six weeks later, that employee received a letter from the state bureau of motor vehicles. The letter informs the employee that the computer used for the registration "had been compromised with software that allowed capture of each keystroke." The letter goes on to explain how the key logger was detected by the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT), and reported through the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center (MS-ISAC). So, do you want to know if your boss is using a key logger?  Wait for your official break time. Then, use your office computer to renew your vehicle registration. Allow six to eight weeks for delivery. Perhaps then you will receive a written finding from the government that your computer is infected with a key logger. Either way, it is not safe for employees to use office computers for any confidential communications.  I recommend against using the office computer to communicate with your lawyer, with law enforcement, or for any personal communication. The boss could find out about it.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On October 27, 2010, Professionals for the Public Interest (PftPI) will present a panel discussion on the "Appropriate Use of Science in Public Policy." Although the event will be free, registration is required. The event will be held at 4:00 pm at the American Association for the Advancement of Science Auditorium, 1200 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.

Here is PftPI's description of the panel topic:

The federal government relies on scientific studies to craft regulations intended to protect the health and safety of American workers, the general public, and our environment. But amid charges of ideology-driven agendas and politicization of science, already-tenuous public faith in the regulatory process can easily be lost. What can be done to improve the process, to ensure that the widest possible range of knowledge and expertise is utilized, that conflicts of interest and inappropriate influence are minimized, and that science is used appropriately to help inform public policy? This event will explore ways to make the regulatory process more open, consistent, and credible to all stakeholders.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last July, the National Whistleblowers Center (NWC) joined with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and the Government Accountability Project (GAP) in submitting a letter to Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis. The letter raised concerns about whether the Department of Labor (DOL) was doing enough to improve DOL's Whistleblower Protection Program. Today we received Secretary Solis' response. In the letter, Secretary Solis points to the "top to bottom" review of the Whistleblower Protection Program, and she promises that her Deputy Secretary, Seth Harris, will meet with representatives of NWC, PEER and GAP.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The White House has announced that today President Barack Obama signed into law the Veterans' Benefits Act (VBA) of 2010. Among other improvements in the law for veterans, the VBA enhances the employee protections of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). USERRA protects service members from employment discrimination and retaliation on account of their service. It is particularly important for members of the reserves who face retaliation for their periodic absences from work, and their inability to schedule reserve duties around an employer's preferences.

The VBA amends USERRA, 38 U.S.C. § 4303(2), to make clear that employees are protected from discrimination in their wages and benefits. In 2002, the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held that USERRA exempted wages and benefits from protection against discrimination. Gagnon v. Sprint Corp., 284 F.3d 839, 852-53 (8th Cir. 2002).

VBA also adopts a multi-factor test to determine if a successor company is liable for the USERRA violations of a predecessor company. Too frequently, employers use a shell game of changing ownership to evade liability for their actions. The Department of Labor adopted a regulation to allow a wise look at all the circumstances to determine if the new company should be held liable for the previous company's violation. 20 C.F.R. § 1002.35. However, the Eleventh Circuit narrowed the application of this rule by requiring that there be a merger or a transfer of assets before successor liability can be imposed. Coffman v. Chugach Support Services, Inc., 411 F.3d 1231, 1237 (11th Cir. 2005). Both Gagnon and Coffman are now ineffective as Congress has changed the law to specifically require the opposite result.

The VBA adds that the amendments "shall apply" to any violation of USERRA "that occurs before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this Act," and to all USERRA actions "that are pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act." Congress is wising up to the ways courts resist applying remedial laws to accomplish their purposes. USERRA has been a harbinger of legislative refinements to anti-discrimination laws, and I look forward to Congress exercising this type of wisdom when it updates other employee protection laws.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on this question: Does the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) protect employees from retaliation when they verbally complain about wage and hour violations? My friend Jim Kaster of Minneapolis, Minnesota (pictured) argued the case for the employee, Kevin Kasten.  Kasten worked for the Saint Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation from October 2003 to December 11, 2006. He worked at the manufacturing plant in Portage, Wisconsin. The chemicals employees use requires them to wear personal protective equipment (PPE). However, the company positioned the time clocks behind the locker rooms where employees are required to put on and take off their PPE (donning and doffing). That way, the company evaded the duty to pay employees for this required work. When the company ran the operations so that the time clocks would show 40 hour work weeks, the employees lost out on as much as 2.5 hours of overtime each week.

Saint Gobain maintains an "ethics" policy that requires employees to report all violations to their supervisors. (In my experience, companies that do this often use the policy to punish whistleblowers for not raising their concerns fast enough, or through the right channels; enlightened organizations recognize that employees should be protected whenever and however they raise their ethical concerns.) For three months through the fall of 2006, Kasten complained about the location of the time clocks.  He told his supervisor and other managers about how the law prohibited the company from keeping employees from recording their donning and doffing time.  He told them about other companies that were sued and lost.  He told management they would lose, and that they should move the time clocks so they would be before the locker rooms. The company subjected Kasten to close supervision, disciplining him for conduct that had never been a problem during Kasten's prior three years of employment, and was not a problem for other employees.  Finally, on December 11, 2006, the company moved the time clocks.  That same day, they fired Kasten.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Lori Shemka began working for the 28th District Court in Southgate, Michigan, on January 1, 2009. She was later promoted to be a magistrate of the court. Soon, she began to raise concerns that Judge James Kandrevas was abusing his position. Shemka raised concerns that Kandrevas was comingling funds, making false representations to get state and federal grants, failing to pay overtime, and using court employees and resources for non-court business. Kandrevas fired Shemka on May 15, and Shemka sued.  During a three-day deposition of Kandrevas, the judge used the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination 222 times. The judge claimed a lack of memory in response to many other questions. Now, according to a report by the News Herald, the City of Southgate has decided to settle Shemka's whistleblower lawsuit. City Attorney Edward Zelenak told the paper that the city’s insurance carrier recommended that the case be settled as a cost-savings measure. The details have not been disclosed. The U.S. Justice Department is still investigating Shemka's allegations. Shemka tells us that the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission is also investigating Kandrevas' conduct.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On September 22nd, a settlement was reached between Sean Taeschner and the Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle. (See previous blog post on Mr. Taeschner’s case.) The diocese had initiated its own investigation, following the claims made by Mr. Taeschner. The auditor hired by the diocese, however, confirmed the findings from the previous investigation, after which Principal Wayne Melonson was fired. While the settlement leaves Mr. Taeschner victorious, the schoolteacher stated that pursuing the case was “emotionally, financially, spiritually, and professionally” costly, as he has been unable to secure employment in over two years. Now, with a settlement and job prospects in place, Taeschner would appreciate nothing more than an apology from the diocese. As he stated to Seattle’s KOMOnews, “I know that the church teaches that when you say you’re sorry, you make restitution. They’ve made restitution. It would be nice if they said they’re sorry.” Mr. Taeschner’s victory provides yet another positive precedent for whistleblowers, proving that from faith and persistence, justice can be achieved. 

*Elizabeth Finkelman (a NWC intern) drafted this posting.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It certainly seems counterintuitive that the revelation of misconduct and protection of justice would be sidestepped by one of the nation’s most prominent police forces. Police Officer Adrian Schoolcraft has been suspended without pay from the NYPD for nearly a year, after he revealed extensive corruption and misconduct within the police department. Schoolcraft initially believed that he would receive both gratitude and praise for presenting his information to investigators. Instead, the NYPD forced his institutionalization at the mental ward at Jamaica Hospital in Queens, NY. According to an article issued by New York Daily News, the NYPD cast him as a lunatic because he blew the whistle on supervisors who fudged crime stats, enforced illegal quotas and badgered victims trying to report felonies. Schoolcraft made several audio recordings of his supervisors, which support his claims. Police Officer Adhyl Polanco of the 41^st Precinct in the Bronx has also presented similar allegations. However, Officer Schoolcraft recognizes that most officers will never report that they are frequently forced to downgrade felonies to misdemeanor and fulfill summons quotas if they fear retaliation by their supervisors.

Officer Schoolcraft, who is currently engaged in a $50 million federal lawsuit against the NYPD, has no plans to settle his suit. As he told the Daily News, “This is not about money…It’s going to trial and there’s no way around that – the truth has to come out.”  Most whistleblowers feel the same way as Officer Schoolcraft - they are simply trying to do the right thing. For more information on his suit, visit Officer Schoolcraft’s website.  If you are a police officer in need of legal assistance the Attorney Referral Service may be able to assist you.

 *Elizabeth Finkelman (a NWC intern) drafted this posting.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We are pleased to host a new group of interns here for the semester:

Pictured here are (from the top) Matt, (next row) Afshin, Caroline, (middle row) Nobuya, Breann, Juliana, (front row) Liz, Saki and Leigh. We already appreciate how these interns can dive into a firehose of work so quickly.  We could not accomplish all we do without their dedication.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In an editorial yesterday, the Charleston Gazette of West Virginia called on Congress to pass a law to modernize the legal protections for workplace health and safety whistleblowers. "Whistleblowers protect the health and safety of working Americans by exposing unsafe conditions," the editorial begins. It then recounts how the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that the Department of Labor's whistleblower protection program could do a better job of protecting whistleblowers. One could also add the DOL's Inspector General's report. Recalling the Upper Big Branch mine disaster, and the Deepwater Horizon explosion, the editorial suggests, "If whistleblowers had been protected, those tragedies might have been prevented." It then quotes Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., as saying, "I will continue to work with my colleagues and the Secretary of Labor to modernize anti-retaliation protections as part of the Robert C. Byrd Miners Safety and Health Act." I remember attending a hearing on the Protecting America's Workers Act (PAWA) that would modernize Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act).  If including PAWA in the Robert C. Byrd Miners Safety and Health Act will get it passed, I can be all for that. Rep. Miller introduced H.R.5663, the Robert C. Byrd Miners Safety and Health Act, last July. The House Judiciary Committee reported it out on July 29, 2010. As reported out, Section 701 of the bill contains a gold-standard of whistleblower protection to replace Section 11(c) of the old OSH Act.  Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia has introduced a companion bill, S. 3671.  It is still waiting for action by the Senate committee. "Passing stronger whistleblower protections would be a tribute to West Virginia's late senator," the Charleston Gazette says.  I agree.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Maria Aran is the chief of staff for the Miami district of the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), a part of the Department of Homeland Security. When she discovered that a sub-office had mishandled hundreds of sensitive documents, she made a report for the agency's security office. When she sent that report, she inadvertently also sent it to 300 agency officials around the country. (Anyone else ever get surprised that an email was sent by "reply-all"?) Soon thereafter, Aran's bosses wanted to involuntarily transfer her to another agency. Aran complained to the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) which requested an emergency stay of the transfer.  The Merit System Protection Board (MSPB) granted that stay for 45 days. Andrew Becker of the Center for Investigative Reporting writes in today's Washington Post (p. B-3) that OSC is nearing the end of its 45-day investigative period. MSPB stays to protect whistleblowers were unheard of during the prior administration. While we appreciate this stay, we also long for President Obama to appoint a permanent Special Counsel who will have the support and staffing to seek more protections for whistleblowers.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In 2001, Eugene McErlean was working for the giant Allied Irish Banks (AIB) as an internal auditor. He discovered that his employer had been overcharging customers for exchanges from foreign currencies.  In over 3 million transactions, AIB had run up overcharges now valued at over €34 million ($47 million). McErlean reported his findings and his superiors seemed to share his concern, but nothing happened.  Then he went to Irish regulators with a report about his concern. The regulators did nothing, but in 2002 his boss insisted that he retract all his allegations. He refused and soon found himself looking for a new job.  In 2004, the overcharges became a national scandal. Now AIB has set aside €50 million ($69 million) to cover the cost of refunds.

Last year, outgoing AIB boss Eugene Sheehy apologized to McErlean. According to the Irish Independent, Sheehy told a provincial House committee that McErlean, "undertook the role of auditor in a highly professional, competent and effective manner. Eugene was not dismissed by AIB." McErlean was gracious in accepting the apology, and indicated that he was more concerned with the failure of Irish regulators to respond to his 2001 concerns. As the Independent stated last year, "The discredited watchdog would now be better off following Sheehy's example and emerging from the Dame Street bunker waving the white flag."

A year later, that watchdog is now waving that white flag. Today's Independent is reporting that Financial Regulator Matthew Elderfield will testify tomorrow to Ireland's parliament (called the Oireachtas) and convey his agency's apology for its past mistreatment of McErlean and his concerns. Elderfield called McErlean yesterday to convey his apology yesterday.

I can add two postscripts. Wikipedia is still reporting that to this day, AIB has not disciplined anyone for knowingly making the illegal overcharges. The overcharges were made for eight years, and various managers knew about them while there were going on. Also, since this scandal erupted, AIB purchased a large share of M&T Bank of Buffalo, New York.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week the U.S. Department of Labor's Inspector General's office issued a report finding that most of the Department's whistleblower investigations are flawed. The IG's office reviewed investigative files of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) which has responsibility to enforce the employee protections of 17 federal statutes. It found that OSHA dismissed 77% of the whistleblower complaints. In 21% of cases, the complainant withdrew the complaint, either with or without a settlement. That left 2% of cases in which OSHA found the complaint had merit. This is not a rate that would encourage employees to come forward with concerns that might provoke retaliation.

The study examined a sample of the files for compliance with eight essential components of an investigation. These components are things like interviewing the complainant, documenting that interview, asking for witnesses, interviewing the witnesses, visiting the site, allowing the complainant to respond to the employer's claims, and conducting a closing conference. “These elements are essential to the investigative process to ensure that complainants receive appropriate investigations,” the report states at page 3. Compliance with these standards ranges from 54% (conducting face-to-face visits, or a site visit) to 85% (holding a closing conference). The IG concluded that 80% of the investigations failed to meet one or more of the eight essential elements. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause would protect public employees from retaliation only if the employee's speech touched on a matter of "public concern." That is, government officials were free to retaliate against employees for raising matters of private concern, but not for matters of public concern. Myself, I don't see this requirement when I read the First Amendment, but then I remember that the Constitution is a living document that can grow beyond the original intent of the Founders.

While much whistleblowing does raise matters of public concern, the Connick requirement remains on the books as a vehicle for hostile judges who want to steer a retaliation case over the cliff. Now the Third Circuit has pointed to a way around Connick:  the Petition Clause. Recall that the First Amendment prohibits legislators from abridging freedom of speech, or the right "to petition government for redress of grievances." This "Petition Clause" is concerned not so much with the content of what people say in their petitions, but rather with the process of assuring that all people are free to submit petitions for the redress of grievances.  This is the rule that prohibits government from punishing Oliver for asking for more gruel.

That is what Charles Guarnieri did when the Borough of Duryea, Pennsylvania, fired him as police chief.  Guarnieri filed a grievance under his union contract. The arbitrator found that the Borough Council had fired him in retaliation for refusing to speak to the Mayor on the Council's behalf, and ordered that he be reinstated with back pay. The Borough Council became upset and passed a set of ordinances that prohibited the police chief from working overtime, and made him personally liable for any overtime worked by the other officers. A federal court jury awarded him $45,358 in compensatory damages, and ordered the council members to pay $52,000 in punitive damages. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the award of compensatory damages. The Court held that under the Petition Clause, there is no requirement that the petition relate to a matter of public concern.  The Court also held that punitive damages should not be awarded because the evidence did not show any animus greater than the animus of retaliation (concluding that such retaliation is not enough to show "reckless or callous indifference" to the federally protected rights of others). The Third Circuit also held that Guarnieri's attorneys should be paid for all the hours spent on this case.

Now the Borough has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. My hero, Eric Schnapper of the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle, has written an outstanding brief urging the Supreme Court to decline the case. I urge anyone who cares about free speech and the right of petition to read his brief. The case awaits the decision of the Supreme Court.

UPDATE: On October 12, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to accept the appeal of the Borough of Duryea, Pennsylvania.

UPDATE: On March 22, 2011, the Supreme Court conducted oral argument in Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri. Guarnieri's attorney, Eric Schnapper, brilliantly explained how the Petition Clause was clearly meant to cover petitions over private claims that involve no issues of public concern. From my read of the transcript, I foresee that the Supreme Court will reject the Borough's claim that the Petition Clause is governed by the same public concern requirement as the Free Speech Clause.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

New Mexico attorney A.J. Salazar used to be the director of the elections bureau for Secretary of State Mary Herrera.  He resigned earlier this year and publicly denounced the Secretary of State's office for accepting kick-backs on public contracts and having state employees perform campaign work.  Together with two other employees (who have since been fired), he reported his concerns to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Herrara has denied the allegations, but has avoided opportunities to answer reporter's questions about them.

Last week, Salazar reported that his law office had been burglarized, records were missing, and his Blackberry telephone showed messages were forwarded to an unknown account. Salazar shares office space with attorney Rudy Martin in Espanola, New Mexico.  Martin represents the two whistleblowers who were recently fired. Salazar told KOB Eyewitness News 4 that he has back-up copies of all the documents about the Secretary of State's office, but he is concerned that the confidentiality of attorney-client communications has been breached. More information about the developing scandal is available from the New Mexico Independent.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In June 2009, a Metrorail accident near Ft. Totten in Washington, DC, killed nine people. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued a report this summer that found Metro lacked a "safety culture." Now an internal Metro report finds the same problem. Katherine Shaver wrote about the report for the Washington Post. While 60 percent of Metro employees witnessed a safety concern, 30 percent of them did not report it. Shaver says that fear of retaliation is cited as a reason.  Her article fails to mention the two federal laws that grant public transit employees legal protection when they raise safety concerns. These laws are the Federal Rail Safety Act (FRSA), 49 U.S.C. § 20109, and the National Transit System Security Act (NTSSA). Both are part of Public Law 110-53, the 9/11 Commission Act passed in 2007. See § 1413 (NTSSA) and § 1521 (FRSA). I have written about these laws before here, here, here and here. Later this month, I have an appointment to speak to officers of Local 689 of the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) about these legal protections. I feel like Glinda, the Good Witch of the North (from the Wizard of Oz), telling transit workers that they have had these legal protections for years.  They just need someone to tell them about these protections so they can feel more confident that they are protected from retaliation. If it won't be the Metro Board, Metro management, or the Washington Post, then it will be me.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Marty Bair was a senior supervisor for Wackenhut in Miami, Florida, when he blew the whistle on how the company was overbilling the county for empty guard posts on transit systems. Now, eight Wackenhut employees, supervisors and executives have been arrested and charged with racketeering. "I felt vindicated, vindicated," Bair told Jeff Burnside of WTVJ, the NBC affiliate in Miami. "They did everything they could to try to destroy me, and prevent me from telling the truth," Bair adds. Wackenhut has now changed its name to G4S. It claims that it fired Bair for other reasons and it has attacked Bair's credibility. "They fired him because he took part in uncovering their cover up," attorney Gary Costales told Burnside.  NBC Miami has investigated the fraud claims since 2007.  It found more than a dozen employees who reported that they were paid overtime for a full eight-hour shift even when they worked for only a few hours. Bair's lawsuit claims that Wackenhut overbilled Miami-Dade County over $17 million.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Philippine Daily Inquirer reports that the Philippine Bureau of Customs has filed charges that Oillink, an import company, cheated the government out of 700 million Philippine pesos (16 million US dollars). The Bureau of Customs discovered the fraud through an anonymous letter, apparently from a disgruntled employee. In a column, Raul Palabrica says, "It takes a lot of guts for a person to provide inside information to the authorities that could lead to the imprisonment of the people he once worked with or whose table he may have shared on several occasions." "And once the whistle is blown, there is no assurance that the whistle-blower will not be caught in the maelstrom that his action may have caused," Palabrica adds. He also comments on the predicament of UBS whistleblower Brad Birkenfeld.  Birkenfeld's disclosures, he says,

resulted in the rest of the safe banking havens based in Lichtenstein, Cayman Islands and other exotic places into doing something similar under pain of being accused of money laundering and blacklisted in the international banking community.

So you think the whistle-blower was declared a hero for initiating the action that practically turned upside down tax haven banks?

No! Instead, he was tried and found guilty of abetting tax evasion and sentenced to 40 months in jail.

That is suffering for speaking truth to power.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

David Gibson has written an article for Commonweal Magazine suggesting that in 1870 Australian Mother Mary MacKillop participated in blowing the whistle on a priest engaged in sexual abuse of children. Pope Benedict XVI has scheduled a canonization for Mother MacKillop on October 17, 2010. She will then be known as Saint Mary of the Cross, and she would be Australia's first native born saint. Gibson suggests that she should be the Patron Saint of Whistleblowers.

Gibson cites a documentary by Australia's ABC television to report that MacKillop had denounced the abuse of children by priests, and suffered excommunication by Bishop Laurence Sheil of Brisbane as a result. Joanna Moorhead of The Guardian has written a similar article. This excommunication is a most famous fact about MacKillop's life, but details about the grounds for it are unevenly reported. Blogger Sherry Weddell has now posted a detailed account of the events occurring during 1870 in Adelaide, Australia, the city where MacKillop established the Sisters of St Joseph of the Sacred Heart. Weddell says that in 1870, some sisters of that monastery reported concerns about Fr. Keating 's sexual abuse of children to Fr. Woods, director of the order. Fr. Woods, in turn, passed the concerns up the chain of command, and Fr. Keating was "disciplined" by means of reassignment to Ireland. Fr. Keating's friend, Fr. Charles Horan, undertook a campaign of vengeance against MacKillop and the Sisters of St Joseph. This campaign succeeded in getting MacKillop excommunicated for a period of months, and in dissolving the Sisters of St Joseph in Adelaide. Weddel also reports, however, that MacKillop was not in Adelaide during 1870, but rather a thousand miles away in Brisbane. It is unlikely that she could have participated in the 1870 whistleblowing from Brisbane -- a two week trip away from Adelaide -- until she returned in 1871. Moreover, Bishop Sheil was also away during 1870, at the First Vatican Council.  On his return in 1871, he was ill and dependent on Fr. Horan. While these facts cast doubt on the role MacKillop could have played in raising the 1870 concerns about Fr. Keating, they do not detract from MacKillop's role as a victim of retaliation. Indeed, even modern whistleblower protections would be ineffective if retaliators had free license to visit harm on those that the true whistleblowers care about. MacKillop and the Sisters of St Joseph still stand as worthy examples of the whistleblower story:  suffering for the sake of speaking truth to power. 

UPDATE: The Catholic Church officially canonized Saint Mary of the Cross on October 17, 2010.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link