The Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 provides federal whistleblowers with new safeguards. It upgrades existing protections for federal employees contained in the 1989 whistleblower act for those who witness and report waste, fraud, or abuse on the job. It has been hailed as a long overdue change. In 2007, there was an earlier attempt to strengthen the 1989 law. But this was held up in the Senate. The 2012 statute succeeds where its earlier predecessor failed.
The safeguards contained in the statutes cover most federal workers. They are triggered when a protected disclosure is made by an employee covered under the laws. There are typically four types of proceedings in bureaucratic and judicial forums where this kind of protection is relevant. This can be a Merit Systems Protection Board appeal, which is made after an employer retaliates against the employee. An IRA made to the MSPB. The Office of Special Counsel can take an action against the offending employer. A grievance is filed before a grievance procedural forum. Any negotiated agreement has a negotiated grievance procedure alternative offered for dispute resolution purposes.
The new law makes the range of protected disclosures more clear. Requirements for nondisclosure agreements are tightened. Penalties for violating protections are expanded. A new ombudsman position in select agencies is to be established. Government watchdogs have pointed out that it took 13 years to pass as government managers and their supporters repeatedly blocked the passage of the bill through technical obfuscation.
There are a number of improvements reflected in this law. One of the improvements is that the standard of proof bar needed to receive protection has been lowered. It closes loopholes which weakened the original Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989. The Office of Special Counsel may now discipline employers more easily and compensatory awards will reward certain successful whistleblowers.
The compensation covered by the 2012 statute is distinct from rewards available to certain private whistleblowers. The SEC already compensates disclosure of wrong doing in the private sector. Other disclosers under the False Claims Act who bring Qui Tam cases may be rewarded in actions against companies who have engaged in fraudulent schemes against the federal government.
The new improvements should provide more comfort and support to whistleblowers that elect to sacrifice their own job security for ethics. The existing systemic environment had not provided sufficient support. In fact it had made things harder. The result was that retaliation chilled further disclosures.
Amongst procedural issues that have been resolved are opening up more court appeal avenues and the funding of the Office of Special Counsel. The OSC is empowered to investigate cases and prosecute when allegations of prohibited personnel practices have been made by federal employees. This includes allegations of whistleblower retaliation. It may seek disciplinary or corrective action when warranted under its judgment.
Now the DC Court of Appeals is no longer the only venue for appealing claims lost or dismissed by the MSPB. The record of the court was most discouraging. The court interpreted the existing coverage in such a way claims were rejected at the rate of 178 out of 180 times. Cases may now be heard by other courts. The OSC also will not have litigation expenses deducted from its budget if a case is lost. Previously this had discouraged the agency from taking on such cases. Revealing internal matters constituting illegal or improper activities will no longer be hindered the way it was. The new whistleblower act should encourage more to come forward when they witness such conduct.
The safeguards contained in the statutes cover most federal workers. They are triggered when a protected disclosure is made by an employee covered under the laws. There are typically four types of proceedings in bureaucratic and judicial forums where this kind of protection is relevant. This can be a Merit Systems Protection Board appeal, which is made after an employer retaliates against the employee. An IRA made to the MSPB. The Office of Special Counsel can take an action against the offending employer. A grievance is filed before a grievance procedural forum. Any negotiated agreement has a negotiated grievance procedure alternative offered for dispute resolution purposes.
The new law makes the range of protected disclosures more clear. Requirements for nondisclosure agreements are tightened. Penalties for violating protections are expanded. A new ombudsman position in select agencies is to be established. Government watchdogs have pointed out that it took 13 years to pass as government managers and their supporters repeatedly blocked the passage of the bill through technical obfuscation.
There are a number of improvements reflected in this law. One of the improvements is that the standard of proof bar needed to receive protection has been lowered. It closes loopholes which weakened the original Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989. The Office of Special Counsel may now discipline employers more easily and compensatory awards will reward certain successful whistleblowers.
The compensation covered by the 2012 statute is distinct from rewards available to certain private whistleblowers. The SEC already compensates disclosure of wrong doing in the private sector. Other disclosers under the False Claims Act who bring Qui Tam cases may be rewarded in actions against companies who have engaged in fraudulent schemes against the federal government.
The new improvements should provide more comfort and support to whistleblowers that elect to sacrifice their own job security for ethics. The existing systemic environment had not provided sufficient support. In fact it had made things harder. The result was that retaliation chilled further disclosures.
Amongst procedural issues that have been resolved are opening up more court appeal avenues and the funding of the Office of Special Counsel. The OSC is empowered to investigate cases and prosecute when allegations of prohibited personnel practices have been made by federal employees. This includes allegations of whistleblower retaliation. It may seek disciplinary or corrective action when warranted under its judgment.
Now the DC Court of Appeals is no longer the only venue for appealing claims lost or dismissed by the MSPB. The record of the court was most discouraging. The court interpreted the existing coverage in such a way claims were rejected at the rate of 178 out of 180 times. Cases may now be heard by other courts. The OSC also will not have litigation expenses deducted from its budget if a case is lost. Previously this had discouraged the agency from taking on such cases. Revealing internal matters constituting illegal or improper activities will no longer be hindered the way it was. The new whistleblower act should encourage more to come forward when they witness such conduct.
About the Author:
You can visit the website www.hboischsolutions.com for more helpful information about The Whistleblower Act Buttressed With New Law
No comments:
Post a Comment