12 ms·

Federal whistleblowers are entitled to damages of missed future pay, court rules

217 points by WaitWaitWha 2y ago

RecycledEle 2y ago
Any sociopath who is afraid of whistleblowers will work the system until they are the person (or part of the committee) that handles whistleblower complaints. I have seen this at multiple employers. The whistleblower system is hopelessly broken.
infamouscow 2y ago
[flagged]
- tonetegeatinst 2y ago
  Let's just hope they don't get the Boeing special. A heartfelt apology and promise to do better, while silently retaliating against your whistleblowers. Whistleblowers who's testimony is probably contributing to an ongoing investigation, which could go into the grey area of interference of an investigation and could be construed as "witness" intimidation/ evidence tampering when the witness to the evidence of your company fuckup is the whistleblowers.
freddie_mercury 2y ago
I'm a little confused about this and the article doesn't help explain it very well. On the one hand it says "The latter category has long been interpreted to include future lost earnings, the court said, including when reputational harm can hurt employees’ earning potential." Which makes it sound like the decision is no big deal and in standing with long set precedent. But then it also says, "Patrick Walsh, one of Perlick's attorneys, said the case could have far reaching impact." But it isn't clear what the far reaching impact is, since future earnings have always been a factor? It sounds like the actual far reaching impact is this? "The court also said MSPB erred when it ruled Perlick was not entitled to compensatory damages because she was not guaranteed a job after her research concluded. Instead, the judges ruled, Perlick needed only to show that a preponderance of the evidence that she was likely to have future employment. That standard does not require certainty, the court ruled" So they just clarified you don't need a guarantee of a future job to seek lost future wages, just a preponderance of evidence? I'm just trying to parse what is actually novel & news here and the article isn't helping.
- gnicholas 2y ago
  My reading (IAAL) is that in 2012 the whistleblower laws were changed, and key language was added in. That language has been interpreted, in other contexts, to include future earnings. But the new law had not yet been tested, so this case is a "case of first impression" in that regard. The reason it will have far reaching impact is that potential whistleblowers will no longer worry about losing future earnings, which could have deterred (especially younger) potential whistleblowers.
  - freddie_mercury 2y ago
    Thanks, that makes sense I guess. Wish the article had spelled that out. Saying "the law was changed in 2012 but this aspect of it hadn't been tested before, though similar language in other laws and other contexts had been" seems like a key bit of explanation that is missing.
- mannykannot 2y ago
  Few (if any) laws set out an exact decision procedure thorough enough to determine precisely whether it applies in every possible case, and if so, the corresponding response to be mandated. In this particular case, the issue was what counted as consequential damage from the illegal actions. The VA argued that as the whistle-blower was working on renewable one-year contracts, the lost earnings were fully compensated for by back-pay up to the end of the contract in effect at the time. Her lawyers argued her firing interrupted her research, prevented her from publishing on it and damaged her reputation in a way that could have impacted her future employment. While this issue could be framed as being one about how much evidence is required here, I feel that, more importantly, it is a rejection of the VA's premise, which amounted to the claim that the end-date of the plaintiff's contract set a horizon beyond which no harm could be attributed to the VA's illegal actions. While this ostensibly only applies to workers on fixed contracts, I imagine the same principle could be applied in other cases where the employer attempts to limit the scope of damages to the specific position held by the employee at the time of the infringement.
hulitu 2y ago
> Federal whistleblowers are entitled to damages of missed future pay, court rules I guess they forgot the "if they manage to stay alive" part. /s
sharpshadow 2y ago
That's would be a great incentive especially for better payed workers with possibly more access to critical information.
oldpersonintx 2y ago
[dead]
cherryteastain 2y ago
[flagged]
- reaperman 2y ago
  Snowden did both “legitimate” whistleblowing (related to illegal domestic spying on US citizens) and “illegitimate” whistleblowing (releasing information on legal international spying, which some might find distasteful but is very much legal). So he wouldn’t get any benefit from this. Government whistleblowers also have to strongly consider attempting to run things up the pole internally first in a Snowden-type situation. You may be allowed to skip internal procedures for whistleblowing if you have a good reason for believing internal reporting channels are compromised or ineffective. You’d still have to report it to some government entity that could hold the NSA accountable (like sending the info to members of Congress or your agency’s Office of Inspector General) rather than run straight to the news media. Running straight to the media first like Snowden did generally strips you of whistleblower protections. Especially if its not even something illegal in the first place (like spying on Angela Merkel). Biggest Snowden disclosures which would have been supposed to receive whistleblower protections (unsanctioned / illegal NSA activity): - Domestic phone record metadata collection (actually was approved by FISA/FISC courts under section 215 but federal courts determined the program exceeded the authority granted by 215) - PRISM program (was authorized under section 702 and received annual certifications from FISC, ostensibly focused only on foreign spying but scope of collection ability included all domestic content as well) - XKeyscore (authorized under Executive Order 13333 and FISA, similar concerns as PRISM) Neither XKeyscore or PRISM were ever determined to “systemically” exceed their legal authority, but disclosure of these programs did lead many politicians to work towards better oversight of NSA activities given their “shocking” (at the time) scope of collection. Biggest Snowden disclosures which were clearly not eligible for whistleblower protection because there was no doubt it was legal: - Spying on Angela Merkel and other foreign leaders (of course we spy on other nations, duh. That’s what spying is.) - Lots of operational details and techniques used for legitimate spying. Tailored Access Operations, Quantum Insert, ANT catalog, BULLRUN, MYSTIC, SOMALGET, Dishfire and Prefer, DEWSWEEPER, SECONDGET, etc. - Economic Espionage: Spying on Petrobras, Belgacom, Trade Negotiation surveillance, IMF, World Bank, German economic targets (variety of industries), French Ministry of Economy, Mexican energy sector, EU trade negotiations Nobody thought any of these exceeded the NSA’s authority. Spying on other nations is generally considered fair game. The most iffy disclosure (hard to tell if program was entirely legal) never got much followup. These were details on the MUSCULAR program, which siphoned data going between Google and Yahoo datacenters outside of the USA (but obviously still would have ended up “spying” on many Americans).
robertlagrant 2y ago
Instinctively I worry about unintended consequences for this sort of thing, but in this case it seems...pretty good? Can anyone think of any?
- laborcontract 2y ago
  SEC whistleblower rewards have been an unequivocal good. They get a percent of monetary sanctions against the violating company.
- anon373839 2y ago
  This isn’t revolutionary; it simply means that federal employees would be able to seek damages in court that are similar to what private-sector employees could seek. It’s still no walk in the park: you have to prove liability first, meaning you have to prove your whistleblower activity was the motive for your firing. (The government will cook up an alternate explanation, of course.) You have to prove your damages to a reasonable certainty. But if you do jump through those hoops, then you won’t hit a special wall previously erected to block an aspect of federal employees’ claims.
Garvi 2y ago
[flagged]
- rfrey 2y ago
  If you're referring to Gonzola Lira, the dating coach blogger known as "redpillcoach" who blogged about how feminists were destroying society and how to neg any girl into your bed, the only "news source" that is suggesting some kind of Ukrainian murder of him is Tucker Carlson. Along with Russian media of course. He died of pneumonia after being arrested in Kharkiv for publishing pro-Russian invasion literature (maybe you don't like that law, but it was the law). He was freed on bail after his arrest but tried to run a checkpoint and exit Ukraine, violating his bail conditions. What you call "exposing uncomfortable truths" was just him saying Ukraine is Russia, calling the military Nazis, and calling for Ukrainian surrender.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
longitudinal93 2y ago
I expect Julian Arrange to get a substantial award.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  Why would you expect that?

217 points by WaitWaitWha 2y ago

Any sociopath who is afraid of whistleblowers will work the system until they are the person (or part of the committee) that handles whistleblower complaints. I have seen this at multiple employers. The whistleblower system is hopelessly broken.

infamouscow 2y ago

[flagged]

tonetegeatinst 2y ago
Let's just hope they don't get the Boeing special. A heartfelt apology and promise to do better, while silently retaliating against your whistleblowers. Whistleblowers who's testimony is probably contributing to an ongoing investigation, which could go into the grey area of interference of an investigation and could be construed as "witness" intimidation/ evidence tampering when the witness to the evidence of your company fuckup is the whistleblowers.

freddie_mercury 2y ago

I'm a little confused about this and the article doesn't help explain it very well. On the one hand it says "The latter category has long been interpreted to include future lost earnings, the court said, including when reputational harm can hurt employees’ earning potential." Which makes it sound like the decision is no big deal and in standing with long set precedent. But then it also says, "Patrick Walsh, one of Perlick's attorneys, said the case could have far reaching impact." But it isn't clear what the far reaching impact is, since future earnings have always been a factor? It sounds like the actual far reaching impact is this? "The court also said MSPB erred when it ruled Perlick was not entitled to compensatory damages because she was not guaranteed a job after her research concluded. Instead, the judges ruled, Perlick needed only to show that a preponderance of the evidence that she was likely to have future employment. That standard does not require certainty, the court ruled" So they just clarified you don't need a guarantee of a future job to seek lost future wages, just a preponderance of evidence? I'm just trying to parse what is actually novel & news here and the article isn't helping.

gnicholas 2y ago
My reading (IAAL) is that in 2012 the whistleblower laws were changed, and key language was added in. That language has been interpreted, in other contexts, to include future earnings. But the new law had not yet been tested, so this case is a "case of first impression" in that regard. The reason it will have far reaching impact is that potential whistleblowers will no longer worry about losing future earnings, which could have deterred (especially younger) potential whistleblowers.
- freddie_mercury 2y ago
  Thanks, that makes sense I guess. Wish the article had spelled that out. Saying "the law was changed in 2012 but this aspect of it hadn't been tested before, though similar language in other laws and other contexts had been" seems like a key bit of explanation that is missing.
mannykannot 2y ago
Few (if any) laws set out an exact decision procedure thorough enough to determine precisely whether it applies in every possible case, and if so, the corresponding response to be mandated. In this particular case, the issue was what counted as consequential damage from the illegal actions. The VA argued that as the whistle-blower was working on renewable one-year contracts, the lost earnings were fully compensated for by back-pay up to the end of the contract in effect at the time. Her lawyers argued her firing interrupted her research, prevented her from publishing on it and damaged her reputation in a way that could have impacted her future employment. While this issue could be framed as being one about how much evidence is required here, I feel that, more importantly, it is a rejection of the VA's premise, which amounted to the claim that the end-date of the plaintiff's contract set a horizon beyond which no harm could be attributed to the VA's illegal actions. While this ostensibly only applies to workers on fixed contracts, I imagine the same principle could be applied in other cases where the employer attempts to limit the scope of damages to the specific position held by the employee at the time of the infringement.

hulitu 2y ago

> Federal whistleblowers are entitled to damages of missed future pay, court rules I guess they forgot the "if they manage to stay alive" part. /s

sharpshadow 2y ago

That's would be a great incentive especially for better payed workers with possibly more access to critical information.

oldpersonintx 2y ago

[dead]

cherryteastain 2y ago

[flagged]

reaperman 2y ago
Snowden did both “legitimate” whistleblowing (related to illegal domestic spying on US citizens) and “illegitimate” whistleblowing (releasing information on legal international spying, which some might find distasteful but is very much legal). So he wouldn’t get any benefit from this. Government whistleblowers also have to strongly consider attempting to run things up the pole internally first in a Snowden-type situation. You may be allowed to skip internal procedures for whistleblowing if you have a good reason for believing internal reporting channels are compromised or ineffective. You’d still have to report it to some government entity that could hold the NSA accountable (like sending the info to members of Congress or your agency’s Office of Inspector General) rather than run straight to the news media. Running straight to the media first like Snowden did generally strips you of whistleblower protections. Especially if its not even something illegal in the first place (like spying on Angela Merkel). Biggest Snowden disclosures which would have been supposed to receive whistleblower protections (unsanctioned / illegal NSA activity): - Domestic phone record metadata collection (actually was approved by FISA/FISC courts under section 215 but federal courts determined the program exceeded the authority granted by 215) - PRISM program (was authorized under section 702 and received annual certifications from FISC, ostensibly focused only on foreign spying but scope of collection ability included all domestic content as well) - XKeyscore (authorized under Executive Order 13333 and FISA, similar concerns as PRISM) Neither XKeyscore or PRISM were ever determined to “systemically” exceed their legal authority, but disclosure of these programs did lead many politicians to work towards better oversight of NSA activities given their “shocking” (at the time) scope of collection. Biggest Snowden disclosures which were clearly not eligible for whistleblower protection because there was no doubt it was legal: - Spying on Angela Merkel and other foreign leaders (of course we spy on other nations, duh. That’s what spying is.) - Lots of operational details and techniques used for legitimate spying. Tailored Access Operations, Quantum Insert, ANT catalog, BULLRUN, MYSTIC, SOMALGET, Dishfire and Prefer, DEWSWEEPER, SECONDGET, etc. - Economic Espionage: Spying on Petrobras, Belgacom, Trade Negotiation surveillance, IMF, World Bank, German economic targets (variety of industries), French Ministry of Economy, Mexican energy sector, EU trade negotiations Nobody thought any of these exceeded the NSA’s authority. Spying on other nations is generally considered fair game. The most iffy disclosure (hard to tell if program was entirely legal) never got much followup. These were details on the MUSCULAR program, which siphoned data going between Google and Yahoo datacenters outside of the USA (but obviously still would have ended up “spying” on many Americans).

robertlagrant 2y ago

Instinctively I worry about unintended consequences for this sort of thing, but in this case it seems...pretty good? Can anyone think of any?

laborcontract 2y ago
SEC whistleblower rewards have been an unequivocal good. They get a percent of monetary sanctions against the violating company.
anon373839 2y ago
This isn’t revolutionary; it simply means that federal employees would be able to seek damages in court that are similar to what private-sector employees could seek. It’s still no walk in the park: you have to prove liability first, meaning you have to prove your whistleblower activity was the motive for your firing. (The government will cook up an alternate explanation, of course.) You have to prove your damages to a reasonable certainty. But if you do jump through those hoops, then you won’t hit a special wall previously erected to block an aspect of federal employees’ claims.

Garvi 2y ago

[flagged]

rfrey 2y ago
If you're referring to Gonzola Lira, the dating coach blogger known as "redpillcoach" who blogged about how feminists were destroying society and how to neg any girl into your bed, the only "news source" that is suggesting some kind of Ukrainian murder of him is Tucker Carlson. Along with Russian media of course. He died of pneumonia after being arrested in Kharkiv for publishing pro-Russian invasion literature (maybe you don't like that law, but it was the law). He was freed on bail after his arrest but tried to run a checkpoint and exit Ukraine, violating his bail conditions. What you call "exposing uncomfortable truths" was just him saying Ukraine is Russia, calling the military Nazis, and calling for Ukrainian surrender.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

longitudinal93 2y ago

I expect Julian Arrange to get a substantial award.

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
Why would you expect that?