RULE 26

Find the Federal Law that Works

Find the Federal Law that Works

Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh on Whistleblowing

Introduction

Rule 26 provides an overview of federal whistleblower retaliation laws, including information on how to file a complaint and what to expect during the legal proceedings. These laws cover a variety of industries, such as nuclear power, public health, mining, and drinking water, and are based on past legal precedents.

To determine which law applies to your situation, you should research the specific rule that pertains to your industry. Additionally, it is important to familiarize yourself with the Department of Labor’s procedures for retaliation cases. By doing so, you will have a better understanding of the process and what to expect if you decide to blow the whistle on your employer.

Practice Tips

  • The federal obstruction of justice statute prohibiting retaliation against whistleblowers is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1513(e).
  • The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit case upholding a RICO cause of action based on whistleblower retaliation is cited as DeGuelle v. Camilli, 664 F.3d 192 (7th Cir. 2011).
  • Other criminal laws may also be implicated whenever a federal witness is threatened or harmed.
  • Employees can fully resolve employment disputes and still file a reward claim directly with federal authorities.

Department of Labor Authorities

The U.S. Department of Labor has an extensive law library and detailed regulations governing the various laws administered by the DOL. The Labor Department also has detailed regulations governing the hearing procedures in DOL cases.

DOL sources applicable to all Labor Department cases:

  • OSHA whistleblower website, located at https://www.whistleblowers.gov.
  • Procedural rules for hearings before DOL Administrative Law Judges: 29 C.F.R. Part 18.
  • The U.S. Department of Labor Office of Administrative Law Judges comprehensive listing of whistleblower decisions and practice guides covering all DOL-administrated laws is at www.oalj.dol.gov.

Major Federal Anti-Retaliation Laws

Below is an outline of the major federal whistleblower laws. Other laws are cited or discussed in Checklists 1 and 2, found in Rules for Whistleblowers.

Airline Safety

Aviation Investment and Reform Act, 49 U.S.C. § 42121. Department of Labor rules implementing this law are codified at 29 C.F.R. Part 1979.

“Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Labor and the FAA,” 67 Federal Register 55883 (2002). The rules governing administrative hearings are located at 29 C.F.R. Part 18.

Clemmons v. Ameristar, 2004-AIR-11 (Dept. of Labor Administrative Review Board, May 26, 2010); Evans v. Miami Valley Hospital, 2006-AIR-22 (Dept. of Labor Administrative Review Board, June 30, 2009) (cases setting forth elements of an airline whistleblower case).

FURTHER RESOURCES

On January 1, 2021 the Anti-Money Laundering Act 2020 became law. In December of 2022, the AML Whistleblower Improvement Act expanded upon the preexisting law. The AML Act has a whistleblower provision.
Whistleblower protections and rewards for AML violations are explained here.
AML violations may also be covered under the Dodd-Frank Act, the IRS whistleblower law, and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
AML whistleblowers, like Howard Wilkinson, have played a key role in reporting violations of illegal money laundering.

The Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 7a-3. Cases must be filed with the U.S. Department of Labor, and the procedures used by the DOL are those that are applicable to the airline whistleblower law, 49 U.S.C. § 42121(b). Claims must be filed with the OSHA division of the DOL within 180 days of an adverse action.

Three laws explicitly cover employees in the banking sector: 12 U.S.C. § 1790b (credit unions), 12 U.S.C. 1831j (FDIC), and 31 U.S.C. § 5323 (money laundering). The Financial Institutions Antifraud Enforcement Act (FIRREA), another old and outdated law, also covers employees in the banking section. All of these older laws lack key protections now available under modern corporate whistleblower laws. Better alternatives, if you can obtain coverage under these laws, are the Dodd-Frank Act (DFA), the IRS whistleblower law, the AML whistleblower law, and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The AML, DFA, and IRS laws also have reward provisions.

Statutes and Regulations

Key Cases

Related Rules

How To

See Rules 6, 19-20.

The whistleblower protection provision for employees who make protected disclosures to the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, or concerning matters within the jurisdiction of the bureau, are set forth in Section 1507 of the Dodd-Frank Act, codified at 12 U.S.C. § 5567.

The Act is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 2051. The Department of Labor rules implementing this law are published at 29 C.F.R. Part 1983.

FURTHER RESOURCES

This law is codified at 47 U.S.C. § 4712. Also see False Claims Act.

Statutes and Regulations

Related Rules

18 U.S.C. § 1513(e) (criminal obstruction of justice law applicable to whistleblowers).

Civil RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961–62 and 64. See Beck v. Prupis, 529 U.S. 494 (2000).

In DeGuelle v. Camilli, 664 F.3d 192 (7th Cir. 2011), the court permitted a whistleblower to file a Civil RICO case based on violations of § 1513(e).

U.S. v. Edwards, 291 F.Supp.3d 828 (S.D. Ohio 2017) is one of the first cases prosecuted under this law. The case was affirmed at U.S. v. Edwards, 2019 West Law 3853573, Case No. 18-3541 (6th Cir. 2019).

FURTHER RESOURCES

All the major anti-discrimination laws (i.e., laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, sex, religion, age, disability, national origin, labor union activities, minimum wage violations, etc.) contain anti-retaliation provisions that protect employees who “blow the whistle” on discriminatory practices, testify in discrimination cases, or file complaints protected under law. Citations to the anti-retaliation provisions of these laws are set forth in Checklist 2, found in Rules for Whistleblowers. Because of the large number of cases filed under these laws, courts often rely on case precedent decided under laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act or the National Labor Relations Act for authority in whistleblower cases.

FURTHER RESOURCES

See Rules 6, 19-20.

Public Law No. 111-203 (2010) is the entire Dodd-Frank Act, including all whistleblower protection and enhanced antifraud provisions. The legislative history of Dodd-Frank is set forth in S. Rep. 111-176, 111th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2010). The securities whistleblower provisions are codified at 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6. The commodities whistleblower provisions are codified at 7 U.S.C. § 26. The SEC’s rules on filing securities qui tam claims are codified at 17 C.F.R. Parts 240 and 249.

The SEC has sanctioned companies for retaliating against whistleblowers or requiring employees to sign nondisclosure agreements that interfere with an employee’s right to communicate with government investigators. See In the Matter of BlackRock, Inc., SEC Administrative Filing 3-17786 (Jan. 17, 2017) ($340,000 sanction for restrictive language in severance agreements); In the Matter of SandRidge Energy, Administrative Proceeding No. 3-17739 (Dec. 20, 2016) ($1.4 million penalty for retaliating against whistleblower); In the Matter of KBR, Administrative File No. 3-16466 (Apr. 1, 2015) ($130,000 sanction for requiring employees to sign restrictive nondisclosure agreements as part of the company’s compliance program).

FURTHER RESOURCES

Wright v. Universal Maritime Service, 525 U.S. 70 (1998), and Lingle v. Norge Division of Magic Chef, 486 U.S. 399 (arbitration of claims covered under a union contract).

The National Labor Relations Board and the Department of Labor’s OSHA division entered into a Memorandum of Understanding concerning retaliation cases for employees who raise workplace safety concerns on January 12, 2017.

FURTHER RESOURCES

Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7622.

Comprehensive Environmental Response (Superfund), 42 U.S.C. § 9610.

Pipeline Safety Improvement Act, 49 U.S.C. § 60129.

Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300j-9(i).

Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6971.

Surface Mining Act, 30 U.S.C. § 1293.

Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2622.

Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1367.

The environmental whistleblower laws are all administered by the Department of Labor. Except for the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act, all of these laws have a thirty-day statute of limitations. The pipeline law has a 180-day statute of limitations.

The Department of Labor rules implementing these laws are codified at 29 C.F.R. Part 24 (environmental); 29 C.F.R. Part 1981 (pipeline). The rules governing Department of Labor adjudications are codified at 29 C.F.R. Part 18. The Interior Department has jurisdiction over the Surface Mining Act, 30 C.F.R. § 865.

Collins v. Village of Lynchburg, 2006-SDW-3 (Dept. of Labor Administrative Review Board, Mar. 30, 2009) (elements of proof Safe Drinking Water case); Hamilton v. PBS Environmental, 2009-CER-3 (Dept. of Labor Administrative Review Board, Oct. 19, 2010) (elements of proof Superfund case).

See Rules 4, 16 and 17. The False Claims Act is codified at 31 U.S.C. § 3729-32, and the Major Frauds Act is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1031. The FCA’s anti-retaliation provision is codified at 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h).

Important Links

Blogs and Updates

The FIRREA whistleblower provision is codified at 12 U.S.C. §§ 4201–23. Due to weaknesses in this law, whistleblowers should consider filing claims under other whistleblower laws, including the Dodd-Frank Act, the IRS reward law, and the Anti-Money Laundering whistleblower law.

Major federal lawsuits under FIRREA: United States of America vs. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, 941 F. Supp. 2d 438, 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2013); United States ex rel. O’Donnell v. Bank of America, No. 12-01422 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 24, 2012); United States v. Wells Fargo, No. 12-7527 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 9, 2012).

Nan S. Ellis et al., “Use of FIRREA to Impose Liability in the Wake of the Global Financial Crisis: A New Weapon in the Arsenal to Prevent Financial Fraud,” 18 University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law 119 (2016).

FURTHER RESOURCES

In the landmark case of Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), the U.S. Supreme Court held that state and local public employee whistleblower disclosures made on matters of “public concern” are protected under the First Amendment. Causes of action under the First Amendment are filed under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Attorney fees are available under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

Most states have also enacted specific laws protecting state and local government employees, and some states include government workers under their Whistleblower Protection Act statutes. State legal protections for government workers should always be considered as an alternative or supplement to a government whistleblower claim, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (a 5–4 ruling that limited the scope of protected activity in First Amendment employment cases).

See Rule 15: Talking to the Press.

First Amendment: Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) (landmark case protecting the right of government employees to blow the whistle to the press).

A federal employee’s right to blow the whistle to the news media was recognized in Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. MacLean, 574 U.S. 383 (2015).

Department of Labor decisions protecting disclosures to the media: Diaz-Robinas v. Florida Power & Light Co., 92-ERA-10, Order of Secretary of Labor, 1996 DOL Sec. Labor LEXIS 6 (Jan. 10, 1996); Donovan v. R.D. Andersen Constr. Co., 552 F. Supp. 249 (D. Kan. 1982).

Title VII decision protecting disclosures to the news media: Wrighten v. Metro. Hosps., Inc., 726 F.2d 1346 (9th Cir. 1984).

Hearings before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, “The Salmonella Outbreak: The Continued Failure to Protect the Food Supply” (Feb. 11, 2009). The hearing record includes extensive testimony and documentation regarding the Peanut Corporation of America’s handling of the contaminated peanut butter scandal.

News articles on the peanut butter contamination scandal: ABC News, “Former Manager Says Peanut Plant Complaints Ignored” (Feb. 17, 2009), abcnews.go.com; Michael Moss, “Peanut Case Shows Holes in Safety Net,” New York Times (Feb. 9, 2009); Darren Perron, WCAX-TV, “Vt. Family Sues Over Salmonella” (Feb. 9, 2009); Corky Siemaszko, “Peanut Corporation Whistleblower: Rats, Cockroaches Roasted with Peanut Butter,” New York Daily News (Feb. 9, 2009); Around the Nation, “Peanut Recall Prompts FEMA to Replace Meals,” Washington Post (Feb. 7, 2009); Associated Press, “FDA: Georgia Plant Knowingly Sold Peanut Butter Tainted with Salmonella” (Feb. 6, 2009); Times Wire Services, “Schools, Disaster Victims May Have Gotten Tainted Peanut Butter,” Los Angeles Times (Feb. 5, 2009); AFP, “U.S. Launches Criminal Probe in Peanut Butter Health Scandal” (Jan. 30, 2009).

Congress passed the Food Safety Modernization Act during the last days of the lame duck session in December 2010. After more than twenty years of missed opportunities, employees who blew the whistle on food safety violations on FDA-regulated foods finally obtained protection. See Renee Johnson, Food Safety in the 111th Congress: H.R. 2749 and S.510, Congressional Research Service (Oct. 7, 2010). The official bill, H.R. 2751, passed on December 21, 2010, and is codified at 21 U.S.C. § 399d.

The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act contains a strong whistleblower anti-retaliation provision modeled on the Sarbanes-Oxley and Airline Safety whistleblower laws. See H.R. 2751. The whistleblower provision is codified at 21 U.S.C. § 399d.

Legislative history: Committee on Energy and Commerce, “Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009,” House Report No. 111-234 (July 29, 2009).

Regulations implementing the food safety whistleblower law are published by the Department of Labor at 29 C.F.R. Part 1987.

The FDA and Department of Labor entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to implement the law on June 20, 2011.

See Rules 2, 4, 6, and 20. The FCPA whistleblower provision is part of the Dodd-Frank Act administered by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Additionally, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission will investigate and sanction companies that pay bribes impacting the international commodities markets. The Justice Department also has jurisdiction over FCPA violations, but it is important to file with the SEC and CFTC before filing with the DOJ to maximize the ability to obtain sanctions.

Statutes and Regulations

See Rule 2, 4, 19 (Dodd-Frank Act).

Two major laws cover fraud against shareholders: the Dodd-Frank Act and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The DFA has both a financial reward provision and anti-retaliation provisions covering the Securities Exchange Act and the Commodity Exchange Act. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1514A (anti-retaliation); 15 U.S.C. § 78j-1—4 (confidential employee concerns program); 15 U.S.C. § 7245 (attorney whistleblower rules); 29 C.F.R. Part 1980 (DOL regulations implementing SOX whistleblower law). Two critically important Department of Labor decisions interpreting the scope of protected activity, employer coverage, and the requirements needed for filing a complaint are Sylvester v. Parexel International, 2007-SOX-39/42 (DOL ARB 2011), and Johnson v. Siemens, 2005-SOX-15 (DOL ARB 2011). Both cases provide broad protections for employees. Also see Funke v. Federal Express Corp., 2007-SOX-43 (DOL ARB, July 8, 2011) (broad definition of protected activity covering third party fraud) (disclosures to local law enforcement protected).

Lawson v. FMR LLC, 134 S.Ct. 1158 (2014) (independent contractors working for mutual funds are protected under SOX).

Kohn et al., “Whistleblower Law: A Guide to Legal Protections for Corporate Employees” (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004) (comprehensive guide to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s whistleblower protections prior to Dodd-Frank amendments).

  1. Rep. No. 107-146, 107th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2002) (legislative history of SOX whistleblower law prior to the Dodd-Frank amendments).

Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, §1558, codified at 29 U.S.C. § 218C (reporting violations of the Public Health Service Act). When blowing the whistle on abusive patient care, whistleblowers should also review applicable state laws for potential coverage.

The Affordable Health Care Act’s whistleblower provision primarily covers employers who may seek to retaliate against employees for asserting their rights under “Obamacare” or for reporting infractions of the law’s accountability provisions. The law follows the standard Department of Labor procedures.

The IRS whistleblower reward and anti-retaliation statute is located at 26 U.S.C. § 7623. The Internal Revenue Manual, available on the IRS’s website, contains the relevant regulations covering IRS enforcement investigations and the rules governing the whistleblower program.

The anti-retaliation law, known as the Taxpayer First Act, is administered by the OSHA division of the Department of Labor, and claims must be filed with OSHA within 180 days of an adverse action. The rules implementing that law are located on the Department of Labor/OSHA website.

Protected Communications, 10 U.S.C. § 1034(a) (“No person may restrict a member of the armed forces in communicating with a member of Congress or an Inspector General”). In addition to permitting members of the armed forces to communicate with Congress and an Inspector General, the statute also permits members of the armed services to blow the whistle to their supervisors, DoD, auditors, or law enforcement officers and other persons designated by rule or regulation. The Inspector General regulation implementing this law is set forth in DoD Directive 7050.06 (July 23, 2007).

A comprehensive paper on the armed services whistleblower law was published online at http://thomasjfiscus.net/files/Whistleblower_Paper_JM.pdf. The paper is titled “Whistleblowers and the Law; An Analysis of 10 U.S.C. § 1034: The Military Whistleblower Protection Act,” and is dated April 30, 2005. No author is listed.

Additional laws and regulations provide protection for members of the Coast Guard (33 C.F.R. Part 53), employees of DoD “non-appropriated fund instrumentalities” (10 U.S.C. § 1587), and former members of the armed services who file complaints concerning the failure of an employer to comply with re-employment rights (38 U.S.C. §§ 4311, 4322–24).

Mine Health and Safety Act (anti-retaliation), 30 U.S.C. § 815(c).

James A. Broderick and Daniel Minaham, “Employment Discrimination under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act,” 84 West Virginia Law Review 1023 (1982).

FURTHER RESOURCES

The nuclear safety whistleblower law is codified as Section 211 of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5851. It follows the standard DOL administrative procedures covered under 29 C.F.R. Part 24 and 29 C.F.R. Part 18.

Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 667 F.2d 908 (10th Cir. 1981), reversed at 464 U.S. 238 (1984).

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission considers the harassment and intimidation of whistleblowers as a serious safety matter and has implemented regulations that sanction companies that engage in retaliation. 10 C.F.R. § 50.7. See In re Five Star Products, 38 NRC 169 (1993); “Freedom of Employees in the Nuclear Industry to Raise Concerns without Fear of Retaliation”; Policy Statement, 61 Federal Register 24336 (1996); “Memorandum of Understanding between NRC and Department of Labor, Employee Protection,” 47 Federal Register 54585 (1982).

Vinnett v. Mitsubishi, 2006-ERA-29 (Dept. of Labor ARB, July 27, 2010), and Speegle v. Stone & Webster, 2005-ERA-6 (Dept. of Labor ARB, Sept. 24, 2009) (cases setting forth elements of nuclear safety claims and proof of discrimination).

Important Links and Cases

OSHA section 11(c) is codified at 29 U.S.C. § 660(c). The Labor Department regulations are located at 29 C.F.R. Part 1977.

Government Accountability Office, Whistleblower Protection Program: Better Data and Improved Oversight Would Help Ensure Program Quality and Consistency, GAO 09-106 (Jan. 2009).

Reich v. Cambridgeport Air Systems, 26 F.3d 1187 (1st Cir. 1994) (permitting compensatory and punitive damages to be awarded under OSHA).

The problems with OSHA are well documented. See U.S. House of Representatives, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections (Apr. 28, 2010) (Testimony of Lynn Rhinehart, General Counsel, AFL-CIO); Wood v. Department of Labor, 275 F.3d 107 (D.C. Cir. 2001). During the April 28, 2010, hearing before the House Subcommittee, Mr. Neal Jorgensen testified about a similar incident in Preston, Idaho, in which he was fired by Plastics Industries. Again, the OSHA investigators determined that he was illegally fired, but the OSHA attorneys decided that they would not file a lawsuit in court. See Statement of Neal Jorgensen.

States court rulings protecting OSHA whistleblowers under state law: Kinzel v. Discovery Drilling, 93 P.3d 427 (Alaska 2004); Boston v. Penny Lane Centers, 170 Cal. App. 4th 936 (2009); Fragassi v. Neiburger, 646 N.E.2d 315 (Ill. App. 1995); George v. D.W. Zinser Co., 762 N.W.2d 865 (Iowa 2009); Hysten v. Burlington Northern, 108 P.3d 437 (Kan. 2004); Abraham v. County of Hennepin, 639 N.W. 342 (Minn. 2002); Cerracchio v. Alden Leeds, Inc., 538 A.2d 1292 (N.J. Superior 1988); Gutierrez v. Sundance, 868 P.2d 1266 (N.Mex. App. 1993); D’Angelo v. Gardner, 819 P2d 206 (Nev. 1991); Jenkins v. Central Transport, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7739 (N.D. Ohio); Vasek v. Board of County, 186 P.3d 928 (Okla. 2008); Walters v. Boll’n Oilfield, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12931 (D. Oreg. 2008). Contra., Burham v. Karl and Geld, 745 A.2d 178 (Conn. 2000). See also Maine Whistleblower Protection Act, 26 M.R.S. §§ 831–833.

Pipeline Safety Improvement Act, 49 U.S.C. § 60129, implemented by the U.S. Department of Labor under 29 C.F.R. Part 1981. The rules governing administrative hearings are codified at 29 C.F.R. Part 18.

FURTHER RESOURCES

Federal Prosecution Sues Justice Department for Leaking Information and Blowing Cover of an Agent

Linda Tripp’s Lawsuit of Violation of Federal Law and Privacy

There is no single federal law that covers public health and safety violations.

Employees forced to work in unsafe conditions are protected under OSHA. If state or federal funds are involved, a whistleblower may be covered under the False Claims Act. Most federal employees are covered under the Whistleblower Protection Act, and employees of the Public Health Service Commissioned Corp members are covered under 10 U.S.C. 1034. See Commissioned Corps Directive CCD 121.06 (Jan. 11, 2017).

Most states cover public health and safety disclosures under state common law (public policy exception) or by statute.

See Kohn, “Whistleblowing and the Coronavirus Crisis,” National Law Review (Mar. 16, 2020), and “Can OSHA Protect Coronavirus Whistleblowers?” National Law Review (Apr. 21, 2020).

U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps Officers have weak whistleblower protections. See Department of Health and Human Services Whistleblower Page. These officers are covered under the military whistleblower protection law, 10 U.S.C. § 1034.

The law is administered in accordance with procedures published by the Department of Health and Human Services. The Department of Defense also has a detailed explanation regarding how this law functions.

See Fraud Against Shareholders section and Rule 19.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, and complaints must be filed with the Department of Labor within 180 days of an adverse action. The law is administered by the DOL in accordance with regulations published at 29 C.F.R. Part 1980. See sources listed under the Fraud Against Shareholders section and cases referenced in Checklist 2, found in Rules for Whistleblowers.

Protection of Seaman against Discrimination, 42 U.S.C. § 2114. The law follows the standard Department of Labor procedures. The DOL regulations covering this law are located at 29 C.F.R. § 1986.

Related Rules

  • Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (Rule 23)

Important Links

See Rules 2, 4, 19–20.

Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1833(b).

Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, Report No. 114-220 (Mar. 7, 2016).

FURTHER RESOURCES

National Transit Systems Security Act, 6 U.S.C. § 1142.

Railway Safety Labor Act, 49 U.S.C. § 20109.

Surface Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. §§ 31101 and 31105.

All three laws follow the standard Department of Labor procedures. The DOL rules implementing the transportation whistleblower laws are 29 C.F.R. Part 1978 (surface transportation) and 29 C.F.R. Part 1982 (national transit and railroad safety). The rules governing the administrative hearings are located at 29 C.F.R. Part 18.

Department of Labor cases setting forth elements of railroad and trucking safety laws, damages, and how to calculate statute of limitations: Anderson v. Amtrak, 2009-FRS-3 (Dept. of Labor ALJ, Aug. 26, 2010), and Canter v. Maverick Transportation, 2009-STA-54 (Dept. of Labor ALJ, Oct. 28, 2010).

Related Rules

Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1985.

The Supreme Court upheld federal claims under this Reconstruction-era statute in Haddle v. Garrison, 525 U.S. 121 (1998). Unlike most employment laws, this was enacted in 1871 when the current employee-employer relationships did not exist. Instead of prohibiting wrongful discharge, this statute prohibits “conspiracies” to interfere with witnesses at federal court proceedings. Victims of such conspiracies can obtain full tort remedies, including damages for economic harm, compensatory damages, and punitive damages. An issue critical to the future effectiveness of this law is known as the “intracorporate conspiracy doctrine.” Under this doctrine persons employed within one corporation cannot “conspire” with each other. If the courts accept this rule, retaliation cases based on the Haddle precedent would be nearly impossible to establish in the modern work environment.

However, a number of courts have rejected this doctrine and permitted Haddle-based claims to go forward. See McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin, 206 F.3d 1031 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

Related Rules

Rules for Whistleblowers - 3 Ways to Order

Order Your Copy Today!

All purchases or donations proceeds go to support the National Whistleblower Center, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to supporting whistleblowers.

What's Inside

This books covers all federal and state laws regarding whistleblowing, including protections, rewards, and procedures for whistleblowing.

Stephen Kohn

Meet the Author

Stephen M. Kohn is considered the world’s leading authority on international whistleblower law, and behind some of todays modern whistleblower rules.

Introduction: The Revolutionary Roots of Modern Whistleblowing

Law Library

The Law Library is a free companion to the Rules for Whistleblowers, complete with relevant whistleblower cases and important links and resources.

Stephen Kohn

Speaking Engagement

Stephen Kohn enjoys speaking to universities of all sizes, students and professionals, the media, general public, and government officials.

Shipping is to the United States Only

For international orders, please contact [email protected].