Bismarck Tribune - North Dakota News - Whistleblower law valuable

Whistleblower law valuable

Jan 23, 2008 - 04:05:24 CST

Most of us paid little attention to the fact of North Dakota's having whistleblower provisions in the law before five employees of Workforce Safety and Insurance filed protection requests with the attorney general. With one on leave and one having been fired, the situation is now as clear as mud.

Sure, we'd known about whistleblowers. The 1999 movie "The Insider" was about Jeffrey Wigand, who worked for one of the big tobacco companies and revealed the practice of adding known cancer-causing ingredients to cigarettes, which Big Tobacco knew were addictive. Wigand faced retaliation big time, as the movie portrayed.

And Sherron Watkins' name became familiar during the Enron scandal.

But we should have taken particular note when on Jan. 4 a U.S. district judge awarded a former FBIagent more than $1 million from the bureau that retaliated against her when she blew the whistle on widespread sex discrimination within it, and on top of that, negligence in child abuse investigations. Jane Turner was a respected investigator of crimes against children, working on North Dakota's reservations for 13 years.

What really provoked the fury of the FBI is when Turner made her complaint, she alleged that fellow agents scavenged at the World Trade Center site.

There is no such thing as the whistleblower law. There is a tangle of federal and state laws. Bills passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in March and the U.S. Senate in December might dovetail to improve the protections given to the average citizen and to federal employees, if they are merged and become law. They are in limbo, the package facing a presidential veto on grounds of national security.

North Dakota's provisions (note the plural) in the Century Code resemble other states' laws, but there are some quirks. One provision is in the Public Employees Relations Act. The other is in a different location in the statute book and gives an avenue of relief to private sector employees who, if they allege they've experienced workplace retaliation, can within 180 days after an incident "bring a civil action for injunctive relief or actual damages, or both" against an employer. The employee who reports - in good faith - a perceived violation of federal, state or local law or refuses an employer's order that might be a violation should not face discipline or discharge. But note that it's on the employee's shoulders to seek a remedy. The department of labor can have a role in helping an aggrieved worker, but there the deadline is 300 days. It can get confusing.

It should be stressed that no protections are offered as a means for any employee to escape the consequences of his or her own law-breaking. It's not remotely like ratting out the boss and getting a sweet deal from a prosecutor.

The entire idea is to expose and especially to put a stop to wrongdoing. The whole Enron debacle could have had a different outcome had insiders found the courage to blow the whistle loudly and much sooner. Courage is the operative quality. Whistleblowers might have some protections, not absolute ones, but their lot still can be hard and stressful. Society needs highly principled whistleblowers, but until the teeth of protection are sharpened at state and federal levels, who really wants to be one?

News > Opinion

Printer friendly version Whistleblower law valuable

Comments

Georgia Laramore wrote on May 14, 2008 2:21 PM:

" It took me a couple of hours to get rid of the goose-bumps that had covered my body....I have been laying low for many years after I was a "whistle-blower " at a Fortune 500 Co. Lately I decided to see what was going on in the "whistle-blower" world, thinking that over time there were now "protection(s)" for those who decided that enough was enough.
Alas, I was wrong.
And even after all these years the price I am paying is almost unbearable. "

Don't ignore the people wrote on Feb 13, 2008 2:24 PM:

" This sounds like a serious issue here folks, why is it so hard for a person to count on protection in this situation? Why aren't we questioning this further? This is big. "

To still wondering wrote on Jan 25, 2008 10:21 PM:

" If whistleblowers are reporting suspected crimes, they're not expected to have all rock-solid proof at the time of the claim. That is law enforcement's job and the job of prosecutors to gather all the evidence and determine if there are crimes and whether or not anyone will be charged. If I understand ND's law correctly, whistleblowers who knowingly make a false claim can be punished. What's shocking in this case is that WSI conducted their own internal investigations of possible criminal conduct committed by management. This doesn't make sense at all (someone please provide a logical argument on this one if you can). Wouldn't that be like allowing Enron management to investigate allegations of their own fraud? Would NEVER HAPPEN in the real world. Also interesting is the fact WSI put out an email to employees stating that one of their attorneys, representing THEM would be present at any interviews conducted onsite by law enforcement. I ask, would this happen in the REAL WORLD? What law enforcement team would invite a suspect's attorney to the interviews of potential witnesses during the investigation???? Someone please explain. If you can. "

Still wondering: wrote on Jan 23, 2008 9:14 PM:

" I am still wondering, and this article does address it, if an employee files for whistle blower protection, that employee's information and accounts must be accurate, yes? If not, then the protection is null and void, yes? I would think you are protected as long as you are telling the truth and uphold integrity. What happens if you are not? What happens if, during the investigation of the allegations, other information is discovered that becomes questionable? I'm still wondering. "

Sage lawyer wrote on Jan 23, 2008 6:33 PM:

" FBI Agent Jane Turner did not get the million dollars...her lawyers did. What Turner got was a forced transfer from North Dakota, a smear job from her supervisors, and intimidation and reprisal from the highest levels of the FBI. For doing the right thing, SA Turner was constructively discharged from her job. The FBI trashed her name in law enforcement circles, and tried to erase all the incredible work that she had done throughout a stellar twenty five year career. FBI whistleblowers have no protection, as well as any federal employees in the intelligence area. FBI Agent Jane Turner had the assistance of Senators Leahy and Grassley (neither Senator from North Dakota would come to her aid) , and a top Washington law firm to take on the FBI. She also had incredible courage and guts. There are not going to be too many whistleblowers with that kind of stamina, and that powerful backing. SA Turner had the backing because her career was unblemished, and her investigations involved success in solving some of the biggest cases in North Dakota. She was the one who opened and investigated the "Baby Moses" case on Fort Berthold, and was the first to use maternal DNA to identify a victim. The losers are the American taxpayers, and everyone who believes in justice and truth. Give whistleblowers the protection they need, they speak truth to power, and they have to have your support to survive. "

JoeBoy wrote on Jan 23, 2008 2:14 PM:

" Employees at the College of Science in Wahpeton told University Officals in the North Dakota University System Board Office (And Board Members also) of the many problems and clear wrong-doing at NDSCS, but nothing was done to the top administators at the College of Science and the so called "trouble makers" were pushed out. Finally when the press got ahold off the crazy things the former president and some of her croonies at the college were doing, she was ousted. Whistle Blower protection for the people that reported all the problems, bull, they were let go! "

Kimberly wrote on Jan 23, 2008 1:21 PM:

" I understand that due to it being a personnel issue, they aren't releasing it. But, ask just about anyone, the information is out there. Many people are after the open records (media, bloggers, etc.) to obtain that information, but WSI has been refusing to release it. The AG is supposedly reviewing it now. "

Kimberly wrote on Jan 23, 2008 9:40 AM:

" Good article - last paragraph is especially good. The problem with a lot of places is that they no one wants to speak up, and you can't blame them, because of the consequences. So, when they do, it takes a lot of courage. Susan, if your "sources" are correct, I question why nothing has been revealed about the "real" reasons. All along, WSI management have been hinting at different things to try to justify their actions; yet, providing no evidence to support anything. Instead, we see people leaving - fired, resigning, etc. Particularly with all the publicity in this case, including questions by the governor's office, if I terminated anyone or put them on leave, you can bet that I'd be providing answers, not alluding to mysterious sources, or hinting around that there's more to the story. "

Susan wrote on Jan 23, 2008 8:41 AM:

" The second to last paragraph describes the current situation. I wish WSI would just reveal the reasons these two people left. Because my sources tell me it had nothing to do with whistleblowing, but with the employees' own actions. "

Post Your Own Comment

All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.