While most whistleblower cases do not make headlines, some of them do because of the scope of wrongdoing found or the fame of the businesses or people involved. Whistleblower laws protecting people who report wrongdoing from retaliation are critical to ensuring that citizens concerned with truth and justice continue to come forward to expose unethical and illegal activity that harms the public. Here are some of the most famous whistleblowers who have effected positive change in the United States.

• Jeffrey Wigand
  Jeffrey Wigand was the Vice President of research and development at Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., the nation’s third-largest tobacco company. Given his position, Wigand had important access to the production goals and scientific data of the company. He was fired subsequent to arguments with the CEO about tobacco ingredients. Then, on February 4, 1996, he appeared on the show 60 Minutes and declared that Brown & Williamson had intentionally changed its tobacco blend to make their cigarettes more addictive, which was shocking at the time and concurrent with top tobacco executives testifying to Congress that cigarettes were not addictive. Moreover, Wigand alleged that he was fired because of this knowledge. Unfortunately, he was only punished further after actually exposing Big Tobacco, as he had to contend with a smear campaign, unfounded lawsuits, and ensuing family troubles, not to mention death threats. Wigand is now credited with being the most important witness in successful tobacco reform lawsuits and his story was portrayed in the film The Insider. Since blowing the whistle (or, as he prefers to see it, telling the truth), Wigand has been trying to reduce the number of young people using tobacco through his non-profit, Smoke-Free Kids, and seems pleased with the positive influence he has had on so many people.
• Sherron Watkins and Cynthia Cooper
  Like Wigand, Sherron Watkins was a Vice President at a big company, Enron Corporation. She testified before the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate regarding her ignored warnings to Enron’s CEO at the time, Kenneth Lay, about accounting inconsistencies in financial statements and ultimately exposed serious corporate misconduct.
  Similarly, Cynthia Cooper exposed significant corporate misconduct when she told the board of WorldCom that the company had covered up $3.8 billion in losses by falsifying the bookkeeping. Both Watkins and Cooper paved the way for corporate law reform, including several laws regulating large corporations and bolstering protections for corporate whistleblowers. In recognition of their efforts and impact, Time magazine named them People of the Year in 2002.
• Colleen Rowley
  Colleen Rowley was also awarded Person of the Year in 2002 for her actions exposing FBI mishandling of information regarding the 9/11 attacks. Rowley testified to the Senate about huge problems facing the FBI and intelligence community in general. Specifically, she brought to light how mishandled information and failure to take action regarding a suspected terrorist may have left the U.S. vulnerable to the 9/11 attacks the year before. Her testimony led to a major reorganization in the FBI. Since then, she has permanently retired from the FBI after 24 years of service, has run for political office, and has spoken publicly about ethical decision-making in her writing and blogging.
• Mark Felt AKA “Deep Throat”
  Mark Felt, known for a long time as simply “Deep Throat” to maintain anonymity, was instrumental in unearthing the Watergate scandal that brought Nixon’s presidency crashing down. The scandal started when Felt was the Associate Director of the FBI with five men being arrested for breaking into the Democratic National Committee headquarters. Felt leaked classified information to Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein that described how the Nixon Administration was involved and how they covered it up. This ultimately resulted in Nixon resigning. Felt’s identity remained secret for 30 years until his daughter convinced him to reveal his identity to the world when he was in his 90s. Felt published two memoirs, The FBI Pyramid and A G-Man’s Life. The FBI released his personnel file in 2012, several years after his death.
• Frank Serpico
  Frank Serpico is famous for exposing pervasive, systematic police corruption within the NYPD (and for being played by Al Pacino in the 1973 film Serpico). Initially, Serpico reported internally to police investigators, but then reported to the New York Times. Following that, the mayor ordered an investigation of police corruption, which ultimately led to huge changes within the NYPD. Not long after the news of corruption broke, Serpico was shot in the face under suspicious circumstances that led some to believe his colleagues wanted him dead. There was never a formal investigation, however. Serpico later spoke about people who seek truth and justice “even in the face of great personal risk,” calling them “lamp lighters” instead of whistleblowers. In 2017, he stood up for Colin Kaepernick, who was protesting a culture of police brutality, and said, “I am here to support anyone who has the courage to stand up against injustice and oppression anywhere in this country and the world.”
• Bunnatine “Bunny” Greenhouse
  Bunnatine “Bunny” Greenhouse was a chief contracting officer for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. She exposed fraud and abuse related to Kellogg Brown & Root’s self-dealing, as she strongly objected to the secret contract that would grant KBR a five-year no-bid contract, no-competition contract as the invasion of Iraq was about to begin. Her objection was ignored, and later Greenhouse agreed to testify before the Senate about the corrupt contracting environment. Right before she did, the Army Corps warned her against it, but she was undeterred and went on to discuss the abuse relating to the Restore Iraqi Oil contract awards. This testimony led to legislation prohibiting such abuse and the Army declared they would not award any more “Sweetheart Contracts to KBR.” The Army Corps then retaliated against Greenhouse by removing her from her position and taking away her top-secret security clearance, as well as giving her unwarranted negative performance reviews and taking other adverse employment actions. Greenhouse hired a wrongful termination lawyer and filed a lawsuit alleging racial and gender discrimination in addition to unlawful retaliation and eventually, in 2011, settled for $970,000 to cover lost wages, compensatory damages, and attorney’s fees. She hopes for better protections for federal worker whistleblowers, saying that “integrity in government is not an option, but an obligation.”

Evidently, sometimes exposing unethical or illegal behavior can be met with significant challenges, but it can also have a big impact on the world. Employees who are not sure about their protection under the law should contact an employment attorney to discuss the details of their situation. Moreover, those who have been retaliated against for protected activity should talk to an employment lawyer to figure out how they can get restitution.

A professional employment lawyer can tell you things that you state with the innocent object can be misconstrued as prejudicial -- or utilized afterward as fodder for a lawsuit.

By way of instance, if you consult to a discrimination lawyer you will find out a casual conversation about a female offender 's forthcoming marriage could lead one to inquire whether she intends to get kids -- that may lead the applicant to feel that you discriminated against her based on sex if she doesn't receive the job.  Or, your optimistic outlook concerning the business 's future achievement may convince an applicant to take the occupation -- and also to afterward sue you for making false claims, after he's laid off when the firm faces an economic recession.

The meeting room doesn't need to be such a dangerous place, nevertheless. 

Don't ask about anything which the law prohibits you from contemplating making your choice.  By way of instance, employment attornies blive don't ask about an applicant's race or faith because it is kind of discrimination in the workplace since you aren't permitted to look at those factors in making your choice.  The graph below provides a few tips about the best way best to acquire the information you want while remaining within the boundaries of the law.  And don't fear if a candidate raises a delicate subject -- like handicap or national origin -- with no prompting from you.  It is possible to 't boost these issues, but the offender can.

Respect the offender 's solitude.  Although federal law doesn't require one to accomplish this, many state laws and rules of etiquette perform.

 Should you exaggerate your business 's prospects in a bid to market the applicant on your company, along with the applicant accepts the job due to those statements, then you may face a lawsuit for fraud.  And, should you make claims about job safety -- for instance, the firm doesn't fire workers that are doing well -- you'll need to maintain them or risk a suit for violation of a contract.

As soon as you understand such drawbacks, it's not that hard to remain on the ideal side of this law.  Provided that you concentrate on the applicant's capability to perform the job (in other words, don't ask about illegal topics) and therefore are honest (in other words, don't inform the applicant anything untrue or deceptive ), you'll do just fine.

The perfect approach to prevent improper questions would be to do a little bit of preparation.  Prior to the interview, make two lists: one of all of the tasks which the applicant is going to need to execute within the project along with the opposite of all of the abilities and expertise that you need for your position.  This can allow you to concentrate on what you need to find out: if the candidate can perform the job.  In the meeting, you may use your lists as a way to produce questions concerning the applicant's qualifications.

The lists can assist you in another way.  In the event you utilize each list with every candidate, you can make certain you're asking all candidates basically the very same questions.  This can allow you to prevent the look of handling some candidates differently from other people.

To avoid questions that violate an applicant's solitude and sexual harassment, the excellent taste is the very best guide.  Don't request any applicant concerning their sexual life otherwise the applicant may hire a sexual harassment attorney to sue you, beliefs about contraception and family planning, or remarks about same-sex associations.  Don't request any offender about personal finances, spiritual beliefs, or political affiliations.

In case you have questions regarding how to avoid discriminating against applicants with disabilities, a place that lots of employers find catchy, visit Nolo's post Avoid Disability Discrimination When Hiring New Employees.

Below are a few examples of methods you could find the data you want without running afoul of anti-discrimination laws.  To learn more about age discrimination and illegal interview questions, visit Nolo's posts.

Age   Are you 18 decades old or older? 
 (if your business has a nepotism policy)   Are you currently married?

Citizenship      Are you legally allowed to operate in the USA on a full-time foundation?     Are you currently a native-born citizen of the USA?  Where are you?

Disability These [supply applicants with the listing of job functions] would be the vital functions of this job.  How would you do them? Have you got any physical disabilities that will prevent you from doing this particular job?

 

 All things considered, job applicants are working to work out if the job will match with their career objectives, abilities, and lives beyond the workplace.  They deserve to know the truth so that they can make a perfect choice.

This strategy won't only keep you out of legal trouble, but also improve your odds of locating a worker who's ideal for your job and to your industry.   In case you've advised the applicant the fact and he or she needs the job, then you've likely found a fantastic fit.

Listed below are a couple of rules that Can Help You avoid common guarantee drawbacks:

Don't create predictions regarding your business 's fiscal future.  Even if you genuinely feel that you're heading to the Fortune 500, maintain your confidence to your self.  If the candidate asks concerning the business 's prospects, then stick to the truth.  Should you make any announcements concerning what the future may bring, clearly identify them hopes, not predictions.  By way of instance, you may say "our company has doubled in each of the previous 3 decades, and we're trusting that growth trend will last," however you shouldn't state "we'll be the market leader by next year. "

 Permit 's face it: You just can't understand what your inventory options will be worthwhile later on.  It's nice to spell out your stock option program to applicants and also to let them know that you expect the choices will likely be valuable, but urge 't say things such as "if those options vest, we'll all be millionaires! "

An expert labor lawyer belive that don't say anything which may restrict your best to make personnel decisions later on.  Should you tell an applicant that you merely fire employees for poor performance, this can restrict your ability to complete that individual for any other reason -- like personality conflicts or economic downturns -- whether he or she takes the job.  In the same way, if you claim pay raises at fixed intervals, the worker could hold you to that promise, even though your employer 's financials or the worker 's functionality doesn't justify a raise.

If layoffs are likely, state so.  If your business is contemplating staff discounts and there's even a remote likelihood that the applicant you're interviewing may lose that new occupation consequently, disclose this until the candidate accepts the job.  Otherwise, you might find yourself slapped with a lawsuit, particularly if the worker left a safe job elsewhere to come work for you.  Obviously, this strategy may make it hard to find new workers, but it really isn't reasonable (or lawful ) to employ individuals on false pretenses.

Accurately explain the position.  Don't Evaluate the job demands to property an applicant and don't play with bait and switch by providing an applicant one occupation, then putting them in another.  Perhaps it doesn't matter for you who does what, but it is going to matter to the worker.  And a worker who takes the place based on statements which prove to be untrue may have grounds for a suit.

For more info please contact a labor attorney.