105
edits
Difference between revisions of "Whistleblower Protection Laws"
Whistleblower Protection Laws (view source)
Revision as of 18:22, 17 February 2025
, Monday at 18:22→Prohibited Whistleblower Retaliation
| Line 958: | Line 958: | ||
*diminution in job duties | *diminution in job duties | ||
*blacklisting | *blacklisting | ||
=='''Employee-Favorable Causation Standard and Burden of Proof'''== | |||
A complainant can prevail merely by showing by a preponderance of the evidence that her protected activity was a contributing factor in the unfavorable action. A contributing factor is any factor which, alone or in connection with other factors, tends to affect in any way the outcome of the decision. See Klopfenstein v. PPC Flow Techs. Holdings, Inc., ARB No. 04-149 at 18, ALJ No. 2004-SOX-11 (ARB May 31, 2006) (internal citation omitted). Once a complainant meets her burden by a preponderance of the evidence, the employer can avoid liability only if it proves by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same action in the absence of the employee’s protected conduct. Clear and convincing evidence is “[e]vidence indicating that the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain.” See Peck v. Safe Air Int’l, Inc., ARB No. 02-028 at 9, ALJ No. 2001-AIR-3 (ARB Jan. 30, 2004). | |||
=='''Remedies for Whistleblower Retaliation'''== | |||
Remedies include: | |||
*injunctive relief | |||
*reinstatement | |||
*back pay with interest | |||
*“special damages” | |||
*attorney’s fees | |||
*litigation costs | |||
*expert witness fees | |||
Where reinstatement is unavailable or impractical, front pay may be awarded. “Special damages” has been construed under similar whistleblower protection statutes to include damages for pain, suffering, mental anguish and an injured career or reputation. See, e.g., Kalkunte, ARB Nos. 05-139 & 05-140 at 15 (SOX case awarding complainant emotional distress damages); Hannah v. WCI Communities, 348 F. Supp. 2d 1332, 1334 (S.D. Fla. 2004) (“a successful Sarbanes-Oxley Act plaintiff cannot be made whole without being compensated for damages for reputational injury that diminished plaintiff’s future earning capacity”). A complainant may also be entitled to damages for loss to his reputation as part of the “make whole” remedy provided by the statute. See Hannah, 348 F. Supp. 2d at 1334. | |||
=='''Procedures Governing Section 402 Whistleblower Retaliation Claims'''== | |||
A complainant must file her complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) within 180 days after the date on which the retaliatory adverse action occurred. OSHA will investigate the claim and can order preliminary relief, including reinstatement. Either party can appeal OSHA’s determination by requesting a de novo hearing before a DOL Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), but objecting to an order of preliminary relief will not stay the order of reinstatement. Discovery before an ALJ typically proceeds at a faster pace than discovery in state or federal court, and the hearings are less formal than federal court trials. For example, ALJs are not required to apply the Federal Rules of Evidence. Either party can appeal an ALJ’s decision to the ARB and can appeal an ARB decision to the circuit court of appeals in which the adverse action took place. | |||
If the Secretary of Labor fails to issue a final decision within 210 days of the filing of a complaint, or within 90 days after receiving a written determination from OSHA, the complainant can remove her claim to federal court for de novo review and either party may request a trial by jury. Section 402 does not preempt or diminish any other remedy for retaliation provided by Federal or State law, and therefore a Section 402 complainant could remove the claim to federal court and add additional claims, such as a common law wrongful discharge action, which would provide an opportunity to obtain punitive damages. | |||
=='''Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act'''== | |||
The [https://www.zuckermanlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/Criminal-Antitrust-Anti-Retalia-tion-Act-of-2019.pdf Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act,] which was signed into law on December 23, 2020, protects whistleblowers against retaliation for disclosing evidence of criminal cartel activity. | |||
=='''Protection Against Retaliation under the Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act'''== | |||
The Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act protects any employee, contractor, subcontractor, or agent of an employer. | |||
The Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act does not apply where: | |||
*the covered individual planned and initiated a violation or attempted violation of the antitrust laws; | |||
*the covered individual planned and initiated a violation or attempted violation of another criminal law in conjunction with a violation or attempted violation of the antitrust laws; or | |||
*the covered individual planned and initiated an obstruction or attempted obstruction of an investigation by the Department of Justice of a violation of the antitrust laws. | |||
=='''Whistleblowing Protected Under the Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act'''== | |||
The Act protects an employee (1) providing information to an employer, a federal regulatory or law enforcement agency, or Congress concerning an act or omission the individual reasonably believes to be a violation of the antitrust laws (section 1 or 3 of the Sherman Act) or a violation of another criminal law committed in conjunction with a potential violation of the antitrust laws; or (2) participating in, or otherwise assisting, an investigation relating to such a violation. | |||
Criminal prosecutions of Sherman Act violations are typically limited to intentional and clear violations such as price fixing, bid rigging, and market allocation among competitors (also known as “horizontal agreements”). According to the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Resource Manual, price fixing generally involves any agreement between competitors to tamper with prices or price levels, or terms and conditions of sale for commodities or services. Bid rigging generally involves an agreement or arrangement among companies to determine the successful bidder in advance of a bid letting at a price set by the successful bidder. Horizontal customer allocation is an agreement among competitors at the same level of distribution of a product or service that each will service certain designated customers or classes of customers and will not attempt to compete, or will limit the manner in which they will compete, for the business of customers allocated to a competitor. | |||
Note that some forms of protected conduct under the Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act are also protected under other whistleblower protection laws. For example, a disclosure about bid-rigging to obtain a contract with a federal agency can also be protected conduct under the Defense Contractor Whistleblower Protection Act and the False Claims Act. | |||
=='''Type of Retaliation Prohibited Against Antitrust Whistleblowers'''== | |||
The Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act prohibits a wide range of retaliatory acts, including discharging, demoting, suspending, threatening, harassing, or in any other manner discriminating against a whistleblower in the terms and conditions of employment. | |||
The catch-all category of retaliation (“in any other manner” discriminating against a whistleblower) includes non-tangible employment actions, such as “outing” a whistleblower in a manner that forces the whistleblower to suffer alienation and isolation from work colleagues. See Menendez v. Halliburton, Inc., ARB Nos. 09-002, -003, ALJ No. 2007- SOX- 5 (ARB Sept 13, 2011). An employment action can constitute actionable retaliation if it “would deter a reasonable employee from engaging in protected activity.” Id. at 20. | |||
=='''Burden of Proof for an Antitrust Whistleblower'''== | |||
The Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act applies the causation standard and burden-shifting framework set forth in the [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/42121 AIR21 Whistleblower Protection Law]. Under that framework, the whistleblower prevails by proving that their protected whistleblowing was a contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action taken by their employer. The Department of Labor Administrative Review Board has emphasized that the standard is low and “broad and forgiving”; protected activity need only play some role, and even an “[in]significant” or “[in]substantial” role suffices. Palmer v. Canadian Nat’l R.R., ARB No. 16-035, ALJ No. 2014-FRS-154, at 53 (ARB Sept. 30, 2016) (emphasis in original). Examples of circumstantial evidence that can establish “contributing factor” causation include: | |||
*temporal proximity; | |||
*the falsity of an employer’s explanation for the adverse action taken; | |||
*inconsistent application of an employer’s policies; | |||
*an employer’s shifting explanations for its actions; | |||
*animus or antagonism toward the whistleblower’s protected activity; and | |||
*a change in the employer’s attitude toward the whistleblower after they engage in protected activity. | |||
Once the whistleblower proves that their protected conduct was a contributing factor in the adverse action, the employer can avoid liability only if it proves by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same adverse action in the absence of the whistleblower engaging in protected conduct. | |||
=='''Remedies or Damages in an Antitrust Whistleblower Retaliation Case'''== | |||
A prevailing antitrust whistleblower is entitled to make-whole relief, which includes: | |||
*reinstatement with the same seniority status that the whistleblower would have had, but for the discrimination; | |||
*back pay, with interest; and | |||
*compensation for any special damages sustained as a result of the discrimination including litigation costs, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. | |||
=='''Deadline or Statute of Limitations to File an Antitrust Whistleblower Retaliation Case'''== | |||
The statute of limitations for an antitrust whistleblower retaliation claim is 180 days from the date that the employee was first informed of the adverse action. | |||
=='''Antitrust Whistleblower Retaliation Case Adjudication'''== | |||
An antitrust whistleblower retaliation case must be filed initially with OSHA, which will investigate the claim. If OSHA determines that there is [https://www.zuckermanlaw.com/sp_faq/reasonable-cause-standard-osha-whistleblower-investigation/ reasonable cause] to believe that a violation occurred, OSHA can order relief, including reinstatement of the whistleblower. | |||
Either party can appeal OSHA’s determination by requesting a de novo hearing before the DOL Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ), but an employer’s objection to an order of preliminary relief will not stay the order of reinstatement. Once an antitrust retaliation claim has been pending before the DOL for more than 180 days, the whistleblower can remove the claim to federal court. | |||
=='''Purpose of the Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act'''== | |||
Senators Grassley and Leahy, the sponsors of the Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act, offered the following explanation of the purpose of the Act: | |||
“Competition is essential for a thriving, affordable and innovative marketplace. When our antitrust laws are violated, consumers are often left paying the price. The Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act encourages and shields from reprisal private sector employees to shine a light on activities that violate our antitrust laws. This bipartisan bill is an important step to safeguarding fair marketplaces as well as the whistleblowers who support them. It’s earned broad support in both chambers of Congress, and I urge President Trump to sign it into law without delay,” Grassley said | |||
“Our country has a proud history of protecting whistleblowers who expose wrongdoing . . . In an era where dominant corporations aggressively seek to expand their profits and quash competitors, our laws should protect whistleblowers who take significant risks to report criminal antitrust violations like price-fixing that undermine free and fair competition . . . ,” Leahy said. | |||
The Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act implements a recommendation made in a July 2011 [https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-11-619.pdf GAO Report about criminal cartel enforcement.] | |||