No Result
View All Result
SUBSCRIBE | NO FEES, NO PAYWALLS
MANAGE MY SUBSCRIPTION
NEWSLETTER
Corporate Compliance Insights
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Career Connection
  • Events
    • Calendar
    • Submit an Event
  • Library
    • Whitepapers & Reports
    • eBooks
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Career Connection
  • Events
    • Calendar
    • Submit an Event
  • Library
    • Whitepapers & Reports
    • eBooks
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
No Result
View All Result
Corporate Compliance Insights
Home Compliance

Encourage Internal Whistleblowing in an Evolving Legal Landscape

by Marta Moakley
September 14, 2015
in Compliance
Encourage Internal Whistleblowing in an Evolving Legal Landscape

Ensuring an inclusive, welcoming and ethical work environment should be a priority for all employers – especially those with corporate compliance obligations. Employers that encourage a workplace where employees feel safe when disclosing concerns, whether regarding a safety issue, an accounting irregularity or a failure to disclose certain losses, may be reducing liability risks that accompany incidences of external whistleblowing.

However, employers need to be cognizant of implementing strong retaliation protections for employees who report potential noncompliance with laws. This becomes especially relevant as the legal landscape may evolve to extend anti-retaliation protections to internal whistleblowers.

Whistleblowing Bounties

The surge of bounty awards in recent years has caused much concern for compliance departments. While ethics continued to be a top concern for corporations, many feared that the appeal of spectacular bounty awards would cause employees who normally would have reported incidents internally to go directly to enforcement agencies instead.

As an initial response, many corporations required that employees bring their complaints internally before taking them to an enforcement agency for resolution. This may aid in a swift assessment of the potential problem and provide the corporation with an opportunity to resolve the issue prior to outside agency involvement.

However, insisting that an employee keep a complaint confidential and impeding a federal investigation does not encourage internal whistleblowing – it merely invites further enforcement agency scrutiny.

Not surprisingly, enforcement agencies have concerns regarding employers proscribing contacts regarding legally protected communications. The SEC’s Rule 21F prohibits the impeding of any individual from communicating directly with the SEC regarding possible securities law violations. In addition, a director, officer, member, agent or employee of a represented entity may communicate directly with the SEC without having to seek prior consent from the entity’s counsel.

But this is a broader issue than that of whistleblowing: the National Labor Relations Board and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have regulated the restriction of employee communications, especially if there is a danger that a confidentiality agreement would muzzle a legitimate complaint that affects the public at large.

Encouraging Internal Disclosures

The most significant step an employer may take in encouraging employees to voice their concerns internally is to have a strong anti-retaliation and whistleblowing policy (registration required). The policy should list the specific steps, processes and protections that an employee may take in reporting potential misconduct or unethical practices. The policy must in no way impede an employee’s ability to seek redress through the SEC or other applicable agency.

It remains a hotly debated issue whether an employee who reports conduct internally without reporting the information to an outside agency is legally protected against retaliation. The SEC has taken the position for some time that the anti-retaliation protections apply whether or not the information was reported externally (even though mere internal reports may disqualify an employee from a bounty award).

Court Challenges

Employees who have disclosed information internally and who were then terminated have initiated lawsuits seeking protection under the Dodd-Frank Act’s anti-retaliation provisions. However, challenges have centered on the Dodd-Frank Act’s definition of whistleblower, which means “any individual who provides … information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the [SEC]” (15 U.S. Code § 78u–6, which addresses whistleblower incentives).

The interpretation of this definition has resulted in inconsistent outcomes. Some courts have accepted the plain reading of the provision, which states that only those who have communicated directly with the SEC may enjoy retaliation protections. In fact, the 5th Circuit’s 2013 opinion in Asadi v. G.E. Energy U.S., LLC adopted this interpretation, dismissing the lower courts’ and the SEC’s expansive reading of the statute as protecting an internal whistleblower.

But the SEC continues to favor an expansive definition.

SEC Interpretive Guidance

In August, the SEC issued guidance that addresses whether internal whistleblowing is protected by the Dodd-Frank Act. The agency formalized its previous position that internal whistleblowers enjoy the Dodd-Frank Act’s anti-retaliation protections. However, the SEC acknowledged that there may indeed be a difference between an internal whistleblower (one who reports misconduct to a compliance department, supervisor or corporate officer) and an external whistleblower (one who reports information directly to the SEC).

The difference, according to the SEC, is not in whether the whistleblower would receive anti-retaliation protections at all. Instead, the difference concerns the whistleblower’s eligibility for a bounty award. The SEC clarified in its guidance that although an internal whistleblower may not be retaliated against, only those whistleblowers who report information directly to the SEC would be able to reap any monetary rewards as a result of a case’s successful prosecution.

The SEC’s position allows for whistleblowers to enjoy the enhanced protections available under the Dodd-Frank Act, including the ability to claim double back pay for retaliation and a lengthy period in which to bring claims (as compared to other whistleblower protection statutes such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Occupational Safety and Health Act). The Dodd-Frank Act also allows whistleblowers to file cases in court directly without the need for prior administrative proceedings.

Although the SEC’s guidance may not prove dispositive in a court proceeding, the SEC’s expansive approach may be adopted by other federal courts (in opposition to the Asadi case), potentially setting up a Supreme Court resolution.

Conclusion

Whistleblowing is an evolving area of the law that requires close monitoring by compliance professionals, inside counsel and HR. Given the strong support for whistleblowers as a matter of public policy, there remains a strong possibility that the court decisions will eventually settle on an expansive interpretation of the definition of whistleblower, whether under the Dodd-Frank Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act or other federal laws containing anti-retaliation provisions.

For example, in its 2014 Lawson v. FMR, LLC decision, the Supreme Court resolved the question of whether a whistleblower would be protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act by electing an expansive definition of whistleblower that includes not only employees of public companies but also employees of contractors of public companies.

And deference to the SEC’s position is already evident in the courts. In one of the first cases to discuss the issue of internal whistleblowing following the release of the SEC’s interpretive guidance, a New Jersey federal district court – in an unpublished opinion (Dressler v. Lime Energy, No. 3:14-cv-07060, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106532 (D.N.J. Aug. 13, 2015)) – declared the issue a “close call,” but ultimately deferred to the SEC’s position.


Tags: Whistleblowing
Previous Post

When Culture Is the Culprit: Lessons from Toshiba, Hertz and FIFA

Next Post

HR’s Newest Policy: Duty of Loyalty and Why Employees are Accountable

Marta Moakley

Marta Moakley

Marta MoakleyMarta Moakley is the Legal Editor for the training and development, employee retention, performance appraisals, promotions, employee communications, managing employees in special situations, employee discipline, and recordkeeping and minimizing liability content in the employee management section of XpertHR. Prior to joining XpertHR, she worked as an Assistant Attorney General with the Florida Attorney General’s Office and as an Equal Opportunity Specialist for the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. Marta also served as a Law Clerk to the Hon. Paul C. Huck, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida.

Related Posts

hottest takes

The Hottest Compliance Takes of 2022

by Staff and Wire Reports
December 14, 2022

Nobody was canceled for anything they wrote for our pages in 2022 — at least that we know of. But...

NAVEX regional whistleblowing hotline benchmark report_f

Navex 2022 Regional Whistleblowing Hotline Benchmark Report

by Corporate Compliance Insights
November 9, 2022

Explore benchmark data and regional comparisons for Europe, APAC, North America and South America. Regional Benchmark Report 2022 Regional Whistleblowing...

27th Annual Compliance Institute

27th Annual Compliance Institute

by Christina DiPinto
October 20, 2022

For registration, agenda, and more details: https://www.hcca-info.org/conferences/national/27th-annual-compliance-institute?check_logged_in=1 For over two and a half decades, the Compliance Institute (CI), has been...

whistleblower congress

Blowing the Whistle: Exploring Federal Protections After Twitter Testimony

by Katherine Krems
September 28, 2022

Twitter’s been in the news of late thanks to Elon Musk’s (failed?) takeover bid, but another recent bit of Twitter...

Next Post
HR’s Newest Policy: Duty of Loyalty and Why Employees are Accountable

HR’s Newest Policy: Duty of Loyalty and Why Employees are Accountable

Compliance Job Interview Q&A

Jump to a Topic

AML Anti-Bribery Anti-Corruption Artificial Intelligence (AI) Automation Banking Board of Directors Board Risk Oversight Business Continuity Planning California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) Code of Conduct Communications Management Corporate Culture COVID-19 Cryptocurrency Culture of Ethics Cybercrime Cyber Risk Data Analytics Data Breach Data Governance DOJ Download Due Diligence Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) ESG FCPA Enforcement Actions Financial Crime Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) GDPR HIPAA Know Your Customer (KYC) Machine Learning Monitoring RegTech Reputation Risk Risk Assessment SEC Social Media Risk Supply Chain Technology Third Party Risk Management Tone at the Top Training Whistleblowing
No Result
View All Result

Privacy Policy

Founded in 2010, CCI is the web’s premier global independent news source for compliance, ethics, risk and information security. 

Got a news tip? Get in touch. Want a weekly round-up in your inbox? Sign up for free. No subscription fees, no paywalls. 

Follow Us

Browse Topics:

  • CCI Press
  • Compliance
  • Compliance Podcasts
  • Cybersecurity
  • Data Privacy
  • eBooks Published by CCI
  • Ethics
  • FCPA
  • Featured
  • Financial Services
  • Fraud
  • Governance
  • GRC Vendor News
  • HR Compliance
  • Internal Audit
  • Leadership and Career
  • On Demand Webinars
  • Opinion
  • Resource Library
  • Risk
  • Uncategorized
  • Videos
  • Webinars
  • Well-Being
  • Whitepapers

© 2022 Corporate Compliance Insights

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Career Connection
  • Events
    • Calendar
    • Submit an Event
  • Library
    • Whitepapers & Reports
    • eBooks
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe

© 2022 Corporate Compliance Insights

Welcome to CCI. This site uses cookies. Please click OK to accept. Privacy Policy
Cookie settingsACCEPT
Manage consent

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
CookieDurationDescription
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional11 monthsThe cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy11 monthsThe cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytics
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Others
Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.
SAVE & ACCEPT