Whistleblower Protection Act

The whistleblowers below are not all protected by the current Whistleblower Protection Act, which does not cover federal employees who work at certain national security agencies, in certain scientific or research capacities, nor does it extend to private contractors. The whistleblower legislation circulating in the House and Senate aims to protect many of the whistleblowers exempted from current law.

Department of the Interior

Teresa Chambers, Chief of the US Park Police, was fired for blowing the whistle on dangerous staffing shortages in her department. An Inspector General found a “climate of fear” at the agency and employees complained about the chilling effect her case had on whistleblowing. They called it the “Chamber’s Effect.”

National Security

Bogdan Dzakovic was an FAA security investigator who blew the whistle on airport security weaknesses known prior to 9/11. After 25 years of government service, he is now “updating agency phonebooks” and doing other administrative tasks at the TSA.

Mike German was an FBI Special Agent, and a rising star in the Bureau, who blew the whistle on colleagues violating wiretap regulations in a counter-terror operation. He went up the chain of command with his allegations, and was later forced to resign.

Frank Terreri was a federal air marshal who disclosed serious security problems in the post-9/11 Air Marshal Service. Superiors took his gun and badge and opened several investigations against him. He was reinstated one day after the ACLU filed a first amendment suit.

Pentagon

Bunny Greenhouse was the top procurement official at the Army Corps of Engineers. She blew the whistle on a multi-billion dollar no-bid contract with Halliburton for work in Iraq and was subsequently demoted.

Samuel Provance was an army intelligence soldier who blew the whistle on a cover-up involving abuses at Abu Ghraib. He was demoted and alleged a campaign of humiliation and retaliation against him. He was honorably discharged in 2006.

Ernie Fitzgerald was one of America’s seminal whistleblowers, a civilian Air Force analyst fired in 1969 after disclosing a $2.3 billion dollar cost overrun in a pentagon aircraft program. He was eventually reinstated and served the government until retiring, at age 80, in 2006.

Miscellaneous

Rick Piltz was a senior official with the U.S. Climate Change Science Program who blew the whistle on a White House official—a former petroleum lobbyist—who was altering scientific reports to reflect administration views. He resigned out of frustration.

Natresha Dawson was a paralegal at the Office of Special Counsel, the agency charged with investigating whistleblower complaints. She was fired for criticizing the counsel’s general lack of respect for whistleblowers. The Special Counsel is currently under investigation for retaliation against several of his employees.

The Whistleblower Protection Act—the modern legal shelter for federal whistleblowers—was last strengthened by Congress in 1994. Since then, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit—currently the only appeals court that can hear government whistleblower cases—has single-handedly changed the meaning of whistleblower protections. When the Federal Circuit rules on a case, it often creates new standards that whistleblowers must abide by in order to be protected under the law. Below are some of the most frequently cited legal precedents, which critics argue, have made it nearly impossible for federal employees to blow the whistle. Laws currently circulating the House and Senate seek to overturn many of these precedents:

John D. Horton v. Department of Transportation, September 1995

John D. Horton alleged retaliation after complaining to his boss about misconduct in the office. The Federal Circuit said that while misconduct may have occurred, Horton was not protected from retribution because he spoke out to his boss, who he also alleged was involved in the misconduct. The Court said that the purpose of the law is “to encourage disclosure of wrongdoing to persons who may be in a position to act to remedy it, either directly by management authority, or indirectly as in disclosure to the press.” This precedent has been criticized for encouraging employees to first go outside of their chain of command, instead of raising concerns internally.

William E. Willis, II v. Department of Agriculture, April 1998

Willis was not protected from retaliation after uncovering wrongdoing, because uncovering wrongdoing was part of his day-to-day job responsibilities. The Federal Circuit said that even if Willis suffered retaliation for speaking out, he did nothing “for the benefit of the public good” and “did no more than carry out his required everyday job responsibilities.” Critics argue this precedent could subject government employees like meat inspectors or law enforcement officials—whose job it is to uncover wrongdoing—to retaliation if what they uncover is unpopular with managers of political appointees.

Larry Meuwissen v. Department of Interior, December 2000

Meuwissen was not protected from retaliation because while what he spoke out about may have been unlawful, it was a common practice at his agency. The Federal Circuit said that “ a disclosure that is publicly known is not a disclosure.” The purpose of the law, the court said, is to “protect employees who possess knowledge of wrongdoing that is concealed or not publicly known, and who step forward to help uncover and disclose that information.” Critics argue this precedent dissuades employees from coming forward if others already know about the wrongdoing.

Kenneth D. Huffman v. Office of Personnel Management, August 2001
The Huffman case codified precedents set earlier in Horton and in Willis, saying that the employee cannot prove retaliation after blowing the whistle as part of his job duties or to the alleged wrongdoer himself.

John E. White v. Department of the Air Force, December 2004
White faced retaliation after he blew the whistle on gross financial mismanagement at his agency. While his allegations were eventually proven, the Federal Circuit ruled White was not protected because the allegations were “debatable by reasonable people.” This decision softened a related decision whereby the employee must have “irrefragable proof” of gross mismanagement. Critics argue this precedent requires that whistleblowers come forward with an unrealistic and unattainable level of proof.

Garcetti v. Ceballos, May 2006
This U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding a state employee’s case codified the precedent set in Willis whereby an employee is not protected from retaliation if he blows the whistle during the course of his normal job duties. As such, Garcetti limits the degree of public employees’ free speech rights while they are on the job.