New York court orders reinstatement of whistleblower

A New York State appellate court has ordered the New York City Department of Transportation to reinstate whistleblower John Tipaldo. When Tipaldo reported that his superiors violated bidding rules, we was demoted from his position as Acting Assistant Commissioner for Planning. That was in 1996. In 2006, the trial court granted the City summary judgment on grounds that Tipaldo had not made a formal report of the bidding violations to the "appointing authority." The appellate court reversed in 2008 holding that Tipaldo's report to the Department of Investigations was appropriate when the "appointing authority" was the person engaged in the violations. Tipaldo v. Lynn, 48 AD3d 361. The appellate court held that since there was no dispute about the retaliatory demotion, the case would be remanded only for a determination of damages and remedies. On the second appeal, the court held that Tipaldo was entitled to interest on his back pay, thereby increasing his award from $175,000 to $662,721. The appellate court awarded the interest even though the state's statute did not make any explicit provision for interest.  The state statute has "the goal of remediating adverse employment actions which, if allowed, would undermine an important public policy, that is, encouraging public employees to expose fraud, waste and other squandering of the public fisc." Tipaldo had hired an expert to compute the interest and the City did not. The court also held that Tipaldo was entitled to reinstatement even though he had declined promotions offered after his demotion. The court said that his corroborated fear of retaliation made his decisions reasonable so that he could still receive reinstatement as part of the court's order. It took Tipaldo 14 years, and two trips to the court of appeals to get justice.  This is an example of how public officials, when challenged by the integrity of a whistleblower, will waste unlimited public resources to delay justice. This might be a good time for New York's legislature to consider improving its whistleblower law to provide for general and punitive damages, interest, expert fees, attorney fees and jury trials. The case is Tipaldo v. Lynn,  Thank you to the New York Public Personnel Law blog for alerting me to this decision.

 

Harper's reports on yet another whistleblower prosecution

Harper's Magazine is publishing a report by Scott Horton on yet another prosecution for releasing information. Called "Obama's War on Whistleblowers," the article focuses on the prosecution of Steven Kim, a scholar of North Korea’s nuclear program. Since Kim did consulting work for the State Department, the prosecution contends he should not have spoken to Fox News about how the North Koreans were likely to react to proposed sanctions. Former prosecutor and Johns Hopkins professor Ruth Wedgwood told Horton that the Fox News report “contains completely unremarkable observations about what a country would do if it was sanctioned for its poor behavior. These kinds of observations were well known to anyone paying attention to public sources and ought not be the basis for making someone a federal felon.” Assistant Attorney General David Kris says the charges are a “warning to anyone who is entrusted with sensitive national security information and would consider compromising it.” Those who are following the prosecutions of Thomas Drake and Bradley Manning, and the failure to grant clemency to Brad Birkenfeld, may see a pattern. Horton notes that Obama, as a lawyer, represented a whistleblower.  As a candidate, Obama pledged to “strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government.” Horton complains that the prosecution of Kim will effectively "censor public debate about vital facts relating to international affairs and possibly to war. *** [W]e’re supposed to be kept ignorant while the national-security state cares for us all."

NWC Executive Director Appears on C-Span

Stephen M. Kohn, Executive Director of the

National Whistleblowers Center

, appeared on C-SPAN's Washington Journal. He talked about legislative efforts to protect congressional employees who report corruption, waste and other violations committed by Members of Congress. "Everyone loves a whistleblower until it is in your backyard," Kohn says."In reality, they really do help the backyard." Kohn explains how whistleblower protections for federal employees have lagged behind those of employees in the private sector.

 

 photocspansteve
 Click here to watch video of NWC Executive Director Stephen M. Kohn 

Filipino whistleblower protection prompts more disclosures

Benigno AquinoThe new president of the Philippines, Benigno Aquino III (pictured), has granted security guarantees to a group of whistleblowers under the Witness Protection Program. Now those whistleblowers are disclosing more information about corruption under the prior administration. GMA News TV is reporting that the whistleblowers will disclose information about election rigging involving the prior president and certain military leaders. "We are more than willing (to expose more anomalies) because before, we were being suppressed. Now, we are free to talk," former Army technical sergeant Vidal Doble told GMA. Doble previously released a wiretapped conversation in June 2005 called "Hello, Garci." The recording portrays former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo discussing rigging election results with former Elections commissioner Virgilio Garcillano. Doble plans to name more names. Doble also reports that military officials told him to implicate only Samuel Ong, a former National Bureau of Investigation official who exposed the election scandal. He produced tape recordings implicating Macapagal-Arroyo in cheating to win her 2004 reelection. Ong died of lung cancer in May 2009. Corrupt military officials apparently wanted the deceased whistleblower to take the fall for the scandal. Jose Barredo Jr., another member of the whistleblower’s group, told GMA that he plans to disclose how funds for a seedling and fertilizer fund were diverted to Macapagal-Arroyo's campaign. Jueteng whistleblower Sandra Cam told GMA that her group applied for the Witness Protection Program because it trusts in the leadership of its present head, Secretary Leila de Lima. I reported here last March about the murder of jueteng whistleblower Wilfredo "Boy" Mayor. Jueteng is an illegal numbers game, and Mayor's testimony helped convict a political ally of Macapagal-Arroyo. These developments demonstrate the power of having whistleblower protections strong enough to convince whistleblowers that they will be safe in making their disclosures. The closer the issues are to national security, the stronger the protections need to be.

Stephen Kohn to appear on C-Span tomorrow at 8:30 am

NWC Executive Director, Stephen M. Kohn, will appear on C-Span’s Washington Journal tomorrow at 8:30 am EST. He will be discussing the stalled Congressional Whistleblower Protection Act showcased in a recent Politico article and other whistleblower issues.  Viewers will have the opportunity to ask questions via phone, email and Twitter.

In "Charging WikiLeaks," Washington Post misses a better alternative

In yesterday's Washington Post, an editorial called "Charging WikiLeaks" urges the Obama administration to refrain from pressing criminal charges against WikiLeaks leaders for releasing classified State Department cables. "Media outlets do not have a legal duty to abide by the government's secrecy demands," the editorial declares. What should the government do? At the end of the editorial, the Post editors suggest, "[s]horing up the independence and tools of the inspectors general . . . might persuade the next would-be whistleblower to tern to a responsive . . . government entity . . ..." Does the Post really think that would-be whistleblowers don't have the address of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees? My experience is that inspectors generals are good at taking action against corruption that the leadership does not want.  If it is the leadership that is corrupt, then the inspector general they pick is unlikely to take action against them.  My hunch is that most would-be whistleblowers would figure that out. How about meaningful legal protections against retaliation? The current version of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA) in the Senate (S. 372) would leave national security whistleblowers stuck with the decisions of the leaders of the intelligence agencies.  That is likely to be worse that the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB) which rules against whistleblowers over 98% of the time. The House version (HR 1507) would allow all federal employees to have access to jury trials.  Even the employees of national security agencies have access to jury trials for Title VII claims of discrimination. The legal system has figured out how to permit these claims to be tried without damaging national security. It is time we use this process to enhance national security by making sure that whistleblowers have the gold standard of justice when they pursue the lawful means of raising concerns about abuses.

Christian Science Monitor considers national security whistleblowing

Howard Lafranchi, of the Christian Science Monitor, has written an article about the considerations faced by national security whistleblowers. The article is called, "WikiLeaks: When is it 'right' to leak national security secrets?" Lafranchi lays out how the government is likely to face a rising number of national security whistleblowers. The Washington Post series, Top Secret America last month revealed that the government has issued security clearances to 854,000 people.  The national security regime is so large and diverse, and the technology for making disclosures is so prevalent, that it is hard to imagine that there will not be more leaks. FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley told Lafranchi that, "The classifying of information has gone way up – it's doubled or tripled since these wars began – and then we have nearly nine years and counting of Afghanistan and Iraq and the controversial practices associated with them." Lafranchi also quotes me, using the introductory comments I made to explain the nature of whistleblowing. "In legal cases, we speak of the 'protected activity' of the whistle-blower, the individual who comes forth with information about something the employer is doing that is damaging to the public good." Those who want to read more about my thoughts on the WikiLeaks disclosures can see my prior blog post. Lafranchi's article goes on to consider the variety of motives that may influence a person to become a whistleblower. I am reminded of a number of my clients who had no intention of become whistleblowers, but were surprised to learn that just by doing what they thought was right, they had engaged in "protected activity."

Whistleblower "Watchdog" Blurs It's Record

We are deeply disappointed at the letter from Darshan A. Sheth, Acting Director of Public Affairs for the Office of Special Counsel (letter to the editor, Washington Post on Monday, July 26, 2010). There is bipartisan consensus that the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is dysfunctional, and instead of suggesting reforms, the OSC responded to this criticism by obfuscating its record. This is a bureaucracy that has failed to protect whistleblowers for the past ten years.

The letter from the OSC fails to mention the most recent statistics it released, which show that during fiscal year 2008 the OSC ignored 95% of whistleblower disclosures without any investigation and obtained zero stays from the Merit Systems Protection Board. Indeed the letter notes that there is an “increase in the number of whistleblower reprisal complaints“ even as the OSC continues to do little or nothing to support the whistleblowers who file these complaints.

The only way for whistleblowers to be truly protected is if this defensive posturing by the OSC ends.  Real reform must occur, and President Obama must appoint a new chief watchdog at the OSC who will protect and champion the whistleblower. 

Sixth Circuit says local officials are liable for statements that cause discharge

The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals issued a decision this week that local government officials can be held liable for accusations they make against  citizens when it is "reasonably foreseeable" that their statements will cause the citizen to be fired from their job. Martha Paige worked as an accountant for Bunnell Hill Development Company in Warren County, Ohio. She and her husband owned a large farm in that county. When Paige learned about a proposed road project that would interfere with their farming, she organized the Residents' Association of West Central Warren County. On August 6, 2007, Paige attended a public meeting of the Warren County Port Authority. Kimberly Coyner is executive director of the Port Authority. Before the meeting started, Coyner asked Paige about where she worked, and Paige disclosed that she worked for Bunnell Hill. During the meeting, Paige identified herself as president of the Residents' Association, and expressed concerns about an interstate project. Paige alleges that on August 13, 2007, Coyner called Bunnell Hill and told a manager that Paige identified herself as speaking for Bunnell Hill. On August 16, 2007, Bunnell Hill fired paige for using the company name to oppose the interstate project, and disclosed Coyner's call as a basis for the termination.

Continue Reading...

Neon Tommy considers plight of national security whistleblowers

Student Paresh Dave of the Annenberg School of Communication and Journalism at the University of Southern California (USC) has written an incisive story about how national security whistleblowers can protect themselves while blowing the whistle on misconduct by government officials. Dave's story is called, "Whistleblowers Have Some Protection, If They Leak To The Right People." He notes that the government is currently investigating detained Specialist Bradley Manning to see if he could be the source for the WikiLeaks.org release of 91,000 classified State Department cables. Dave spoke with me about my prior blog post about how Manning might have protected himself if he had consulted a lawyer before blowing the whistle on the unnecessary civilian casualties of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If he had learned about the Military Whistleblower Protection Act, 10 U.S.C. § 1034, he could have made his disclosures to members of Congress and preserved a legal defense to the impending charges.

Continue Reading...