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

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion holding that a social worker is protected from retaliation for his courtroom testimony about  a former client. The case is Clairmont v. Sound Mental Health and Wilson, No. 09-35856 (9th Cir. 2011).

From 2005 to 2007, Sound Mental Health (SMH) of Seattle, Washington, employed Richard Clairmont as a domestic violence  program manager. He supervised a treatment program for offenders and members of the public.  SMH had a contract with the Seattle Municipal Court. In exchange for providing the services and making regular reports to the Court, the Court gave SMH office space and equipment. Joni Wilson was the Manager of Probation Services for the Court.

In 2007, a criminal defense attorney subpoenaed Clairmont to provide expert testimony in her client's case.  The client spoke Spanish, and had been terminated by a competing treatment program. Clairmont agreed to provide the testimony about the possibility that the client was treated differently because of the language issue. The Court's probation office was seeking a court determination that the client had violated the terms of probation such that the court should revoke probation and impose a jail sentence. When Wilson learned about Clairmont's testimony, Wilson called Clairmont's supervisor at SMH. Two weeks later, SMH fired Clairmont because of "critical feedback from the City of Seattle Domestic Violence Probation Officers Unit about your performance." The letter noted that "The program is in jeopardy. They have proposed a stop-referral beginning immediately. This leaves SMH with no option but to terminate your employment effective today.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today the Department of Labor's Administrative Review Board (ARB) held its first oral argument in a case under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). Last November, the ARB gave notice of today's oral argument, and invited interested groups to submit friend-of-the-court (or "amicus") briefs. The ARB asked the parties to address issues of how specific OSHA complaints have to be, whether Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) can grant motions to dismiss on the pleadings, and the nature of protected activity under SOX. A prior blog post covered the amicus briefs, including the briefs of the National Whistleblowers Center and Doug Evans. Pictured here are ARB Board Members Luis Corchado, Paul Igasaki (Chair), E. Cooper Brown (Vice-Chair) and Joanne Royce.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Monday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of a sickle cell disease researcher who blew the whistle on improper cloning of blood cell lines. The decision clears the way Dr. Duane Bonds (pictured) to proceed with her claim that the National Institutes of Health fired her in retaliation for blowing the whistle on the improper cloning of cell lines without consent.

This is the first case in which a federal employee will be allowed to pursue a whistleblower lawsuit in federal district court. Dr. Bonds' attorney is Michael Kohn, president of the National Whistleblowers Center. Kohn said: "This decision expands the rights of some federal workers to pursue their whistleblower claims in federal district courts around the country. Unfortunately, since Congress continues to treat federal employees as second-class citizens this right is only available to federal employees who are able to bring a race, sex, age, national origin or religion claim in conjunction with a whistleblower claim. Otherwise, a federal employee has no right to a federal court hearing."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today, President Obama signed the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (H.R. 2571), which contains landmark whistleblower protections for food safety employees.

Highlights of the Food Safety Whistleblower Provision:

•   Covers all employers "engaged in the manufacture, processing, packing, transportation, distribution, reception, holding or importation of food;"
• Allows workers have their case heard before a jury in federal court;
• Provides for reinstatement, back pay and compensatory damages.

I issued the following statement in a press release by the National Whistleblowers Center:

The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) will save American lives by protecting the millions of American workers who grow, process, store and deliver our food. Those workers now have modern whistleblower protections when they raise concerns about the safety of our food.

It is important for working people to know that all legal claims have time limits. The time limit under FMSA to file a written complaint with OSHA is 180 days. For raising concerns about toxic chemicals, though, the time limit is still 30 days. Whistleblowers usually get better results when they work with an attorney experienced in employment discrimination law.

The FMSA fills an important loophole left by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) in 2008. CPSIA does not cover food or medical devices. FMSA is the first law to provide whistleblower protections for workers covered by regulations of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). While tainted food kills about 5,000 Americans a year, medications may kill as many as 100,000 Americans every year. Yet Congress has not extended whistleblower coverage to workers who raise concerns about violations of the FDA's pharmaceutical regulations.

It is time to end the patchwork protection of whistleblowers and pass a law that protects all workers when they raise concerns about health, safety, fraud, illegality, and dangers to the environment.

 Jason Zuckerman has written an excellent guide to the FSMA whistleblower protection. I previously commented on the FSMA and its place in our patchwork in this blog.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link