Executive and Judiciary Showdown over the Whistleblower Protection Act

Greg Keating.png

The new administration’s recent decree that certain federal agencies refrain from communications with the media sets up a showdown between the executive and judicial branches of government. 

The amended WPA includes an anti-gag provision which specifically provides that federal agencies cannot muzzle would-be whistleblowers through confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements. 

While whistleblower protections, rights and remedies expanded dramatically in the private sector during the Obama administration, the same cannot be said for whistleblowers in the public sector, many of whom (like Chelsea Manning) faced dismissal or even jail time for disclosing “state secrets” by blowing the whistle. This prompted Congress, in 2012, to strengthen protections for federal employees by amending the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA). The amended WPA includes an anti-gag provision which specifically provides that federal agencies cannot muzzle would-be whistleblowers through confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements. 

As one of its earliest actions, the new administration ordered media blackouts at a number of federal agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This move set up a showdown between the administration and those who enforce the WPA; just yesterday, the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) issued a press release undoubtedly in response to the new administration’s media blackout order which expressly underscored that federal employees have concrete statutory rights to blow the whistle. While the OSC press release did not directly reference the new administration’s media blackout order, it speaks in broad terms about how “prohibited practices” under the WPA include “any effort to ‘distort, misrepresent [or] suppress’ any information which a federal employee reasonably believes could ‘pose a significant threat to public health or safety or constitute a violation of law, rule or regulation.’” 

It remains as yet unclear how the new administration will address whistleblower protections in the private sector; it seems evident, however, that whistleblower protection in the public sector is likely to continue to be mired in a conflict between the priorities of the executive branch of government and the directives of the legislative and judicial branches as contained in the WPA.  


Read More: Modern Whistleblower Retaliation Risk Requires a Modern Framework

 


What do you have to say? Share your thoughts in the comments below or join a discussion group on Compliance Next.


Judged by the Company You Keep

We live in a world where reputational damage can happen fast, and with devastating consequences. When we work with third parties, this damage can happen due to forces outside our organizations. Whatever marketing efforts we take to build our brand reputations should be complemented by efforts to protect that reputation from third-party risk. Learn about the processes and platforms we can use to do this.

Previous/Next Article Chevron Icon of a previous/next arrow. Previous Post

How to Nurture a Speak-Up Culture in the Era of Speak-Up Apps

Thanks to the rise in popularity of anonymous online chat apps, employees are speaking among themselves more loudly than ever before. While these chat apps can present challenges to organizations, they also offer companies a chance to harness the power of anonymous discussion to further the cause of an ethical culture.

Next Post Previous/Next Article Chevron Icon of a previous/next arrow.

Comments