Editing Whistleblowing (section)

===United States===

{{main|Whistleblower protection in the United States}}
Whistleblowing tradition in what would soon become the United States had a start in 1773 with [[Benjamin Franklin]] leaking a few letters in the [[Hutchinson letters affair|Hutchinson affair]]. The release of the communications from royal governor [[Thomas Hutchinson (governor)|Thomas Hutchinson]] to [[Thomas Whately]] led to a firing, a duel and arguably, both through the many general impacts of the leak and its role in convincing Franklin to join the radicals' cause, the taking of another important final step toward the [[American Revolution]].
[[File:Captain Silas S. Soule.jpg|thumb|left|[[Silas Soule]], a 19th century whistleblower of the [[Sand Creek massacre]] of Native Americans in 1864. Soule was murdered in what some believed was retaliation.]]
The first act of the [[Continental Congress]] in favor of what later came to be called whistleblowing came in the [[Esek Hopkins#Revolutionary War service|1777-8 case]] of [[Samuel Shaw (naval officer)|Samuel Shaw]] and [[Richard Marven]]. The two seamen accused Commander in Chief of the [[Continental Navy]] [[Esek Hopkins]] of torturing British prisoners of war. The Congress dismissed Hopkins and then agreed to cover the defense cost of the pair after Hopkins filed a libel suit against them under which they were imprisoned. Shaw and Marven were subsequently cleared in a jury trial.

To be considered a whistleblower in the United States, most federal whistleblower statutes require that [[federal employee]]s have reason to believe their employer violated some law, rule, or regulation; testify in or commence a legal proceeding on the legally protected matter; or refuse to violate the law.

In cases where whistleblowing on a specified topic is protected by statute, U.S. courts have generally held that such whistleblowers are protected from retaliation.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.oalj.dol.gov/PUBLIC/WHISTLEBLOWER/REFERENCES/REFERENCE_WORKS/EDIG12.HTM |title=DOL.gov |publisher=Oalj.dol.gov |access-date=8 July 2012}}</ref> However, a closely divided [[U.S. Supreme Court]] decision, ''[[Garcetti v. Ceballos]]'' (2006) held that the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] [[free speech]] guarantees for government employees do not protect disclosures made within the scope of the employees' duties.

In the United States, legal protections vary according to the subject matter of the whistleblowing and sometimes the state where the case arises.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.peer.org/state/index.php |title=Peer.org |publisher=Peer.org |access-date=8 July 2012}}</ref> In passing the 2002 [[Sarbanes–Oxley Act]], the Senate Judiciary Committee found that whistleblower protections were dependent on the "patchwork and vagaries" of varying state statutes.<ref>Congressional Record p. S7412; S. Rep. No. 107–146, 107th Cong., 2d Session 19 (2002).</ref> Still, a wide variety of federal and state laws protect employees who call attention to violations, help with enforcement proceedings, or refuse to obey unlawful directions. While this patchwork approach has often been criticized, it is also responsible for the United States having more dedicated whistleblowing laws than any other country.<ref>{{Cite book|title = Transatlantic Whistleblowing.|last = Gerdemann|first = Simon|publisher = Mohr Siebeck|year = 2018|isbn = 978-3-16-155917-4}}</ref>

The first US law adopted specifically to protect whistleblowers was the 1863 United States [[False Claims Act]] (revised in 1986), which tried to combat fraud by suppliers of the United States government during the [[American Civil War]]. The act encourages whistleblowers by promising them a percentage of the money recovered by the government and by protecting them from employment retaliation.<ref name="answers1">{{cite web|url=http://www.answers.com/topic/whistleblower |title=Answers.com |publisher=Answers.com |access-date=8 July 2012}}</ref>

Another US law specifically protecting whistleblowers is the [[Lloyd–La Follette Act]] of 1912. It guaranteed the right of federal employees to furnish information to the [[United States Congress]]. The first US [[environmental law]] to include employee protection was the [[Clean Water Act]] of 1972. Similar protections are included in subsequent federal environmental laws, including the [[Safe Drinking Water Act]] (1974), [[Resource Conservation and Recovery Act]] (1976), [[Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976]], [[Energy Reorganization Act of 1974]] (through 1978 amendment to protect nuclear whistleblowers), [[Superfund|Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or the Superfund Law)]] (1980), and [[Clean Air Act (United States)|Clean Air Act]] (1990). Similar employee protections enforced through OSHA are included in the [[Surface Transportation Assistance Act]] (1982) to protect truck drivers, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act (PSIA) of 2002, the [[Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century]] (AIR 21), and the [[Sarbanes–Oxley Act]], enacted on July 30, 2002 (for corporate fraud whistleblowers). More recent laws with some whistleblower protection include the [[Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act]] (ACA), [[Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act]] (CPSIA), Seamans Protection Act as amended by the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (SPA), [[Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act|Consumer Financial Protection Act]] (CFPA), [[FDA Food Safety Modernization Act]] (FSMA), [[Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act]] (MAP-21), and [[Taxpayer First Act]] (TFA).

Investigation of retaliation against whistleblowers under 23 federal statutes falls under the jurisdiction of the Directorate of Whistleblower Protection Program (DWPP)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.whistleblowers.gov |title=Whistleblowers.gov |publisher=Whistleblowers.gov |access-date=8 July 2012}}</ref> of the [[United States Department of Labor]]'s<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dol.gov |title=DOL.gov |publisher=DOL.gov |access-date=8 July 2012}}</ref> [[Occupational Safety and Health Administration]] (OSHA).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.osha.gov |title=Osha.gov |publisher=Osha.gov |date=28 April 2012 |access-date=8 July 2012}}</ref> New whistleblower statutes enacted by Congress, which are to be enforced by the Secretary of Labor, are generally delegated by a Secretary's Order<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=FEDERAL_REGISTER&p_id=21749 |title=Osha.gov |publisher=Osha.gov |access-date=8 July 2012}}</ref> to the DWPP.

The patchwork of laws means that victims of retaliation need to be aware of the laws at issue to determine the deadlines and means for making proper complaints. Some deadlines are as short as 10 days (Arizona State Employees have 10 days to file a "Prohibited Personnel Practice" Complaint before the Arizona State Personnel Board), while others are up to 300 days.

Those who report a false claim against the federal government, and suffer adverse employment actions as a result, may have up to six years (depending on state law) to file a civil suit for remedies under the US [[False Claims Act]] (FCA).<ref>{{usc|31|3730}} (h)</ref> Under a ''[[qui tam]]'' provision, the "original source" for the report may be entitled to a percentage of what the government recovers from the offenders. However, the "original source" must also be the first to file a federal civil complaint for recovery of the federal funds fraudulently obtained, and must avoid publicizing the claim of fraud until the [[United States Department of Justice|US Justice Department]] decides whether to prosecute the claim itself. Such ''qui tam'' lawsuits must be filed under seal, using special procedures to keep the claim from becoming public until the federal government makes its decision on direct prosecution. Whistleblowers acting under the FCA are the primary enforcement tool used by the U.S. Department of Justice to target fraud, including overbilling to government programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Tricare.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Berry |first=Melissa |date=February 23, 2022 |title=US False Claims Act enforcements exceed $5.6 billion in 2021, mostly on health-care related claims |url=https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en-us/posts/investigation-fraud-and-risk/false-claims-enforcement/ |work=Thomson Reuters}}</ref>

[[File:Edward Snowden-2.jpg|thumb|upright=0.8|American whistleblower [[Edward Snowden]]]]

The [[Espionage Act of 1917]] has been used to prosecute whistleblowers in the United States including [[Edward Snowden]] and [[Chelsea Manning]]. In 2013, Manning was convicted of violating the Espionage Act and sentenced to 35 years in prison for leaking sensitive military documents to [[WikiLeaks]].<ref>Madar, Chase. "The Trials of Bradley Manning". Nation. 19 August 2013, Vol. 297 Issue 7/8, p12-17. 5p. Available online at: {{Cite news |url=https://www.thenation.com/article/trials-bradley-manning/ |title=The Trials of Bradley Manning |last=Madar |first=Chase |date=31 July 2013 |access-date=12 January 2020 |work=The Nation |archive-date=13 January 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200113001432/https://www.thenation.com/article/trials-bradley-manning/ |url-status=dead }}</ref> The same year, Snowden was charged with violating the Espionage Act for releasing confidential documents belonging to the [[National Security Agency|NSA]].<ref>Bamford, James. "Watch Thy Neighbor". Foreign Policy. Mar/Apr2016, Issue 217, p76-79. 3p. Available online at: {{Cite news |url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/11/watch-thy-neighbor-nsa-security-spying-surveillance/ |title=Watch Thy Neighbor |last=Bamford |first=James |access-date=12 January 2020 |date=11 March 2016|work=Foreign Policy}}</ref>

Section 922 of the [[Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act]] (Dodd-Frank) in the United States incentivizes and protects whistleblowers.<ref>"Dodd-Frank Section 922" (PDF). sec.gov.</ref> By Dodd-Frank, the [[U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission]] (SEC) financially rewards whistleblowers for providing original information about violations of federal securities laws that results in sanctions of at least $1M.<ref name="Dodd">"Dodd-Frank Act Rulemaking: Whistleblower Program". www.sec.gov. Retrieved 26 October 2016.</ref><ref>Barthle II, Patrick A. "Whistling Rogues: A Comparative Analysis of the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Bounty Program". Washington & Lee Law Review. Spring2012, Vol. 69 Issue 2, p1201-1257. 57p.</ref> Additionally, Dodd-Frank offers job security to whistleblowers by illegalizing termination or discrimination due to whistleblowing.<ref name="Dodd" /><ref>{{cite journal|url=http://lawspace.stmarytx.edu/item/Agarwal_Step11_McKeown_Final_v2.pdf|title=Anti-Retaliation Protection for Internal Whistleblowers under Dodd-Frank Following the Fifth Circuit's Decision in Asadi|first=Tapas|last=Agarwal|journal=St. Mary's Law Journal|date=2015|volume=46|issue=3|pages=421–431|access-date=13 January 2020|archive-date=13 January 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200113001439/http://lawspace.stmarytx.edu/item/Agarwal_Step11_McKeown_Final_v2.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |jstor = 24770775|title = Protecting Whistleblower Protections in the Dodd–Frank Act|journal = Michigan Law Review|volume = 113|issue = 1|pages = 121–149|last1 = Leifer|first1 = Samuel C.|year = 2014|url=https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol113/iss1/3}}</ref> The whistleblower provision has proven successful; after the enactment of Dodd-Frank, the SEC charged KBR (company) and BlueLinx Holdings Inc. (company) with violating the whistleblower protection Rule 21F-17 by having employees sign confidentiality agreements that threatened repercussions for discussing internal matters with outside parties.<ref>[https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2015-54.html "SEC: Companies Cannot Stifle Whistleblowers in Confidentiality Agreements"]. www.sec.gov. Retrieved 27 October 2016.</ref><ref>Hastings, Kathryn. "Keeping Whistleblowers Quiet: Addressing Employer Agreements To Discourage Whistleblowing". Tulane Law Review. Dec2015, Vol. 90 Issue 2, p495-527. [https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/tulr90&div=18&id=&page= HOL]</ref> Former President [[Donald Trump]] announced plans to dismantle Dodd-Frank in 2016.<ref name="Geewax">{{cite news |last1=Geewax |first1=Marilyn |title=Trump Team Promises To 'Dismantle' Dodd-Frank Bank Regulations |url=https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/10/501610842/trump-team-promises-to-dismantle-dodd-frank-bank-regulations |access-date=13 June 2023 |work=NPR |date=November 10, 2016}}</ref> He created the Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection as a part of the [[Department of Veterans Affairs]], which reportedly instead punished whistleblowers.<ref name="Arnsdorf">{{cite news |last1=Arnsdorf |first1=Isaac |title=Trump Appointees Used "Whistleblower Protection" Law to Target Whistleblowers, Review Finds |url=https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-appointees-used-whistleblower-protection-law-to-target-whistleblowers-review-finds |access-date=13 June 2023 |work=ProPublica |date=24 October 2019 }}</ref>

The US Department of Labor's Whistleblower Protection Program can handle many types of retaliation claims based on legal actions an employee took or was perceived to take in the course of their employment.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Whistleblower Protection {{!}} Whistleblower Protection Program |url=https://www.whistleblowers.gov/about-us |access-date=6 December 2019 |website=www.whistleblowers.gov}}</ref> Moreover, in the United States, if the retaliation occurred due to the perception of who the employee is as a person, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission may be able to accept a complaint of retaliation.<ref>{{Cite web |title=About the EEOC: Overview |url=https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/index.cfm |access-date=6 December 2019 |website=www.eeoc.gov}}</ref> In an effort to overcome those fears, in 2010, the [[Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act]] was put forth to provide great incentive to whistleblowers. For example, if a whistleblower gave information that could be used to legally recover over one million dollars, then they could receive ten to thirty percent of it.

Whistleblowers have risen within the technology industry as it has expanded in recent years. Protection for these specific whistleblowers falls short; they often end up unemployed or in jail. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act offers an incentive for private sector whistleblowers but only if they go to the [[U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission|SEC]] with information.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hiltzik |first=Michael |date=12 July 2018 |title=Column: Whistleblowers need help. This tech entrepreneur wants to provide it |url=https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-whistleblowers-high-tech-20180713-story.html |website=Los Angeles Times}}</ref> If a whistleblower acts internally, as they often do in the technology industry, they are not protected by the law. Scandals such as the [[Dragonfly (search engine)|Dragonfly]] search engine scandal and the [[Snapchat|Pompliano]] lawsuit against Snapchat have drawn attention to whistleblowers in technology.

The federally recognized [[National Whistleblower Appreciation Day]] is observed annually on July 30, on the anniversary of the country's original 1778 whistleblower protection law.