Tip of the Day

On this page we will place tips that we believe will be useful. We will frequently add a new tip on this page and hope that you will return often to read them.

(Details for each Tip are in the next Section below this Summary of Tips.)

NUMBER 55: ASLEEP AT THE "SWITCH": Some whistleblowers who have litigation in Court and have an Attorney representing them, fail to periodically interact with their Attorney, fail to get copies of filed documents, fail to get information on how their case is progressing, and fail to gain a full understanding on what is to be done and when, by their Attorney in the litigation. Time passes quickly, and all of a sudden some whistleblowers suddenly find out, or are otherwise informed that, their case has been dismissed by the court for "Lack of Prosecution". This we call "being asleep at the switch"!

NUMBER 54: PRETENSE THREAT: Sometimes a whistleblower will threaten to his or her employer that if something does not stop, or something does not change, or something does not happen, etc., that employee will supposedly blow-the-whistle to Government Authorities -- however, maybe the employee never really intends to go that far, only pretend that is the intention, and the employer then suspects that is the situation. Unfortunately, this type scenario could set the whistleblower up for a later pretext firing and result in the employer having a seemingly good pretext reason for the firing!

NUMBER 53: PREMATURE REACTION: Sometimes a whistleblower will adversely react to, or take some unwise/unnecessary premature action, simply because the employer does things like demands employee resign, or threatens to fire the employee, or intentionally embarrasses the employee in front of fellow workers, or uses "harsh" words when talking to the whistleblower, or inflicts upon the whistleblower a workplace "silent treatment", or some other aspect intended to cause the whistleblower to be disrespectful, or disobedient, or "to go off the deep end" or otherwise have some premature reaction. Whistleblowers should not fall victim to such employer strategy!

NUMBER 52: BUILDING A FALSE RECORD: Some employers, after an episode of whistleblowing by a whistleblower (maybe weeks or months later), will send that employee an E-mail or a memorandum, or other written communication, and express in that communication some concern about a matter that has nothing at all to do with the subject matter of the past whistleblowing event/episode. It may ask the whistleblower to come to that person's office for a meeting on that subject. Unless the whistleblower does something specific immediately after the meeting, the employer (manager/supervisor) can begin to "sow the seeds" that can successfully lead to the whistleblower's termination of employment!

Click here to see explanation for this tip.

NUMBER 51: DEFAMATION/LIABLE/SLANDER/TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE: Some whistleblowers, after they blow-the-whistle to the Government (Local, State, and/or Federal), or simultaneously, they go Public with their Whistleblowing. Sometimes they contact customers of their employer, or former employer, intending to "educate" them as to the alleged "goings on". Talk about a formula for whistleblower self-destruction, that surely is it!

NUMBER 50: SNOOPING: If your Employer asks you to in effect "snoop" (secretly observe) upon another employee or group of employees, and secretly report back what they are doing or not doing, take the necessary precautions or you may find yourself soon unemployed!

NUMBER 49: PRIVATE SECTOR VS. PUBLIC SECTOR: Sometimes it is difficult for a whistleblower to positively know whether his or her employer is in the Private (Business/Industry) Sector, or whether one's employer is in the Public (local, State, or Federal Government) Sector. There can be some entities that could be legally considered, for purposes of Whistleblowing protection statutes, as a Public rather than a Private Sector entity. For example, perhaps, but not absolute, a Contractor providing Transportation services in a City. The effect of choosing the wrong Statute to sue under, as a whistleblower, can be devastating. Sometimes even a person's Attorney can make the wrong choice with devastating adverse litigation results for the whistleblower!

NUMBER 48: MIRAGE or REALITY: An important aspect in whether or not an act of blowing-the-whistle can become a "protected activity" often depends upon whether or not what the whistleblower blew-the-whistle on was in fact "wrongdoing" of some kind, thus a "reality"; or whether the circumstances are such that there really was no wrongdoing, thus a "mirage"!

NUMBER 47: AN EMPLOYER TRICK: After an occurrence of employee whistleblowing, some employers will create some workplace situation, seemingly not related to any matter that the employee blew-the-whistle on, for the purpose of creating a circumstance that can be used for firing the employee or imposing other disciplinary action!

NUMBER 46: PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE: An employee in a "probationary" employment status (usually for 90 days after starting employment) needs to be careful, by considering when to blow- the-whistle!

NUMBER 45: LOOSE-LIPS: It is a tragic mistake to begin discussing, with fellow employees, in the workplace, matters of wrongdoing that have been observed; especially before the whistleblower decides what, if anything, he or she wants to do about the alleged wrongdoing!

NUMBER 44: SUGGESTION: If your employer ever asks you for your suggestions on what can be improved and/or what you don't like in your workplace, you could become a "hero" with your comments (if the employer's interest in your comments/suggestions is genuine), or you could soon become "unemployed" (if the employer is really seeking to find out which employees are "disgruntled/unhappy")!

NUMBER 43: LOCKED-IN: Whistleblowers who decide to have a lawsuit filed in a state or federal court sometimes fail to realize the consequences of possibly being locked-in to that litigation by a Contingency Fee Contract with an attorney.

NUMBER 42: SPOUSE: If your spouse also works for the same employer as you do, you can usually expect retaliation to occur to you, and sometimes to your spouse, after you blow-the-whistle!

NUMBER 41: OBSERVER: A tragic mistake is made by some non-supervisory/non-management employees who only witness something like sexual harassment in the workplace, but are not themselves the victim; however, they blow the whistle to management and may then be victimized by retaliation -- for which no whistleblowing protection may exist!

NUMBER 40: WITNESSES (Layoff): If persons who have been placed on layoff are contacted as potential witnesses for the whistleblower, there is the possibility that those potential witnesses will become "traitors"!

NUMBER 39: WITNESSES: It is a mistake to assume that fellow employees where you work or worked will testify in your behalf during any whistleblower litigation pursued in Court!

NUMBER 38: ENTRAPMENT: Do not fall for certain employer "antics" that could entrap you into a situation of being insubordinate and thereby give your employer grounds to fire you!

NUMBER 37: COMPROMISING DISCUSSION: It is a mistake of the most serious proportions for a whistleblower, after blowing-the-whistle, on employer wrongdoing, to then engage in workplace discussions with the employer, about voluntarily quitting one's job and voluntarily leaving employment in exchange for money (severance pay, etc.)!

NUMBER 36: FUTURE: Many whistleblowers focus their full attention and energy only upon their workplace situation and any employer retaliation that has or is taking place; however, they must also focus on future considerations as regards their professional career and future employment matters. Otherwise, even if they win the workplace "battle" they might ultimately still lose the future employment "war"!

NUMBER 35: APPLICATION (Employment): If a whistleblower was fired by a prior employer for blowing-the-whistle, on future employment applications, with reference to that prior employment, where it says "Reason for Leaving Employment" rather than saying "Fired", put on the Employment Application "Confidential in Nature -- Will discuss during Job Interview."

NUMBER 34: SETTLEMENT: Occasionally an employer will offer a settlement agreement after firing a whistleblower, or in order to get the whistleblower to leave his or her employment, or as a result of an out of court settlement. It is imperative that such Settlement Agreement contain certain matters, otherwise the whistleblower could face adversity for the balance of their entire professional working career!

NUMBER 33: VICTIM: Any adversity which may occur from whistleblowing should only be a finite event in one's life, not something that makes the whistleblower a "victim" for the rest of their life!

NUMBER 32: FINALITY: If a whistleblower signs a settlement agreement with his or her employer or former employer, it terminates the matter for all time; and it is dishonorable for the whistleblower to later want to pursue the controversy anew (unless the employer/former employer violates the settlement agreement terms)!

NUMBER 31: DOUBLE-AGENT: It is a truly "sleazy" thing to do, but sometimes another employee, whom a whistleblower thought was their friend, or a Supervisor or a Manager, will in actually be a "Double-Agent"; and in reality are merely a "despicable" conduit directly to one's employer -- beware!

NUMBER 30: PROTECTION: Some Whistleblowers, who are still employed and believe that there is a statute/law/regulation that gives them protection in their workplace for their whistleblowing, may erroneously make themselves into a sort of fictional/imaginary "superhuman" who seemingly has the power to confront and take to task supervisors/managers; however that mistaken frame of mind if it exists, might well get the whistleblower fired on something that they might miscalculate on!

NUMBER 29: WRONGDOING: Whistleblowers sometimes mischaracterize things in the workplace as "wrongdoing" when they are not, and the results of this mischaracterization can subsequently have tragic results for the whistleblower!

NUMBER 28: ISOLATION: This is one of the most commonly used retaliatory weapons, by employers, against whistleblowers.

NUMBER 27: DECEPTION: Whistleblowers are sometimes "tricked" into signing some document, like a request for transfer (that says it's voluntary but in reality it's involuntary), or admitting something that is not exactly factual, in exchange for a verbal promise that the employer will supposedly do something in exchange, or a promise that all will be okay. Beware -- disaster will surely follow!

NUMBER 26: APOLOGY: Whistleblowers who seek or expect a public or private apology from their employer or former employer, Government or Industry/Business, for retaliation or other adversity inflicted upon them, are wasting their time, their money, and their life!

NUMBER 25: EMPLOYMENT: Whistleblowers, after being retaliated against by their employer and being fired, who are physically able to work but do not immediately aggressively seek replacement employment, may be due for an "eye opening shock"!

NUMBER 24: MOTIVE: There is a "good" motive and there is a "bad" motive to blow-the-whistle; however, the whistleblowing must be for the "right" motive!

NUMBER 23: QUITTING: Whistleblowers often, in the face of retaliation at work, quit their job; which can be a mistake!

NUMBER 22: LOYALTY: Whistleblowers (planning to do or already done) often mentally wrestle with the question of loyalty to one's employer, when in fact that should not be a question at all!

NUMBER 21: NEPOTISM: Anyone planning to blow-the-whistle, in a Private Sector (Business/Industry) workplace, on a "Nepotism" (one relative hiring another relative) situation, had better get their resume up to date, because they probably will soon need it to hunt for a new job!

NUMBER 20: PERSISTENCE: With rare exceptions (for matters related to public health and/or public safety), the relentless pursuit by a whistleblower, after blowing-the-whistle to Government Authorities, to try and force the Government to prosecute an employer, may be an exercise in futility and one which tragically "self-destructs" the whistleblower!

NUMBER 19: NEWS MEDIA: Don't expect the news media to always publish a newspaper story or TV segment that would portray you in a "favorable light; and never give the originals of any documents to a reporter to retain.

NUMBER 18: ASSUMPTIONS: Whistleblowers need to stick to the facts and document them fully!

NUMBER 17: TOGETHERNESS: If one or more of your fellow employees already know about suspected "wrongdoing" in the workplace, but urge/select/persuade you to be the one to blow-the-whistle, suggest instead that it be "jointly" done, not "individually done"!

NUMBER 16: SPECIFICITY: If your employer (supervisor or manager or higher) tells you they are going to correct a situation you have blown the whistle on, ask: "By when will you do that?" If the correction date is too far out, or they are noncommittal -- be suspicious!

NUMBER 15: TRUTHFULNESS: If your employer accuses you of blowing-the-whistle to an "outside organization or Government Agency" and you lie about it and say it was not you (when it was) then you may be giving your employer a perfect defense if you later allege whistleblowing retaliation by your employer!

NUMBER 14: WRITTEN: At any time after blowing the whistle, (or if you think your employer suspects you are going to blow the whistle,) if you are told by your employer (Supervisor, Manager, Personnel, etc.,) to go home and await further instructions/information -- Always get those "go home" (or don't come in tomorrow) instructions in writing!

NUMBER 13: PARTICIPATION: Do not participate in "wrongdoing" and expect to later excuse that evil by claiming: "my employer made me do it!"

NUMBER 12: WRITING: Do consider, when blowing-the-whistle, to do so in written rather than just verbal form!

NUMBER 11: TAINTED: Don't try to gather evidence of wrongdoing and/or employer retaliation for whistleblowing, that you may never be able to use, and which might get you in trouble!

NUMBER 10: CONSCIENCE: Be mindful of your own conscience, lest you end up tormented for the rest of your life!

NUMBER 9: TIMECARDS: Be cautious that an electronic security system in the workplace does not bring "misery" into your life!

NUMBER 8: MEMORY: A Whistleblower's memory about events and facts relating to past occurrences, can become "faded" over time; but not if an accurate "tool," a "diary," is prepared and kept on a daily (or as often as needed) basis.

NUMBER 7: SURVEILLANCE: A Whistleblower should "take care" in the workplace because Employers have the means to detect certain things.

NUMBER 5: RETALIATE: It is not uncommon for an employer to retaliate against a whistleblower!

NUMBER 4: CAPITULATION: Does it pay to try to right the workplace wrong(s) or should one just "play ball?"

NUMBER 3: REVENGE: Seeking to get "revenge" against an employer/former employer for being retaliated against for Whistleblowing, is a "two edged" sword that cuts both ways!

NUMBER 2: TECHNIQUE: A Whistleblower should "look before they leap" because the manner of blowing-the-whistle often makes the difference between perhaps having whistleblowing Statutory/ Regulatory/or Judicial Case Law protection, or having none!

NUMBER 1: DECISION: Choose the time, place, and manner/method of blowing-the-whistle!

NUMBER 55: ASLEEP AT THE "SWITCH": Some whistleblowers who have litigation in Court, and have an Attorney representing them, fail to periodically interact with their Attorney, fail to get and/or examine copies of all plaintiff and defendant(s) court filed documents, fail to get information from their Attorney on how their case is progressing, and fail to gain a full understanding on what is to be done and when, by their Attorney in the litigation. Time passes quickly, and all of a sudden some whistleblowers suddenly find out, or are otherwise informed that, their case has been dismissed by the court for "Lack of Prosecution". This we call "being asleep at the switch"!

Probably every civil court, whether State or Federal, has a Rule which prescribes that a civil case will be dismissed with prejudice [cannot be re-filed again -- only appealed to a higher Court] after a specified period (maybe a year, more or less) had expired with no activity/filings by the Plaintiff to demonstrate to the court that the case is being actively pursued. The dismissal by the court is for lack of plaintiff (his or her attorney) prosecution of the case, and the dismissal is usually preceded by an order from the trial court judge directing that the Plaintiff show cause why the Court should not dismiss the case for lack of prosecution. By the time the Plaintiff gets "hit" with a "show cause" order from the Court, the end of the case is almost assured, unless some extraordinary circumstances existed -- which they almost never do exist. So, just because you have an attorney, don't sit back and become guilty of "being asleep at the switch"!

First and foremost, never threaten to your employer that you will blow-the-whistle to Government Authorities, then when nothing changes, you do nothing. Because, if at a much later date you again threaten your employer on the same matter or something else, this time the employer is apt to immediately fire you in retaliation; using some other pretext reason for the firing. The employer will then merely say: "We didn't fire the employee in retaliation for his or her threatening to blow-the-whistle -- we don't do such things -- see, we didn't fire that employee the first time he or she threatened to blow-the-whistle." Thus, by the first "pretense threat", the employee set himself or herself up for later being fired, and provides to the employer what might be termed "a seemingly airtight alibi" for the employer retaliation.

NUMBER 53: PREMATURE REACTION: Sometimes a whistleblower will adversely react to, or take some unwise/unnecessary premature action, simply because the employer does things like demands employee resign, or threatens to fire the employee, or intentionally embarrasses the employee in front of fellow workers, or uses "harsh" words when talking to the whistleblower, or inflicts upon the whistleblower a workplace "silent treatment", or some other aspect intended to cause the whistleblower to be disrespectful, or disobedient, or "to go off the deep end", or otherwise to have some premature reaction. Whistleblowers should beware and not fall victim to such employer strategy!

All the adversities described above, have one thing in common -- they do not materially/significantly change the terms and conditions of the whistleblower's employment; therefore, one might say that they fall into the category of employer prerogatives or a sort of employer "free speech" argument. They don't, in and of themselves, change amount of pay, working hours, place of employment, job scope and responsibilities, etc. Thus, there is nothing that guarantees that an employer must be nice to an employee, or must talk "nice" to the employee, or cannot embarrass the employee, etc. (Of course, to be sure, any employer who does those "nasty" things is "stupid" and will never foster/promote any workforce loyalty or improve workforce productivity.) In sum total, so to speak, the employer actions described, are a form of psychological warfare which is intended to put the employee/whistleblower in a sort of psychological state of mind, in which employee good judgment becomes "clouded" by emotion, and the whistleblower prematurely reacts in some inappropriate fashion that then gives the employer a pretext to then fire the whistleblower for fabricated cause. So, in instances like those described, remain cool, calm, "smiling outwardly" and do not "bite on the dirty hook" that the employer is trying to throw into the "muddy workplace waters"!

NUMBER 52: BUILDING A FALSE RECORD: Some employers, after an episode of whistleblowing by a whistleblower (maybe weeks or months later), will send that employee an E-mail or a memorandum, or other written communication, and express in that communication some concern about a matter that has nothing at all to do with the subject matter of the past whistleblowing event/episode. It may ask the whistleblower to come to that person's office for a meeting on that subject. Unless the whistleblower does something specific immediately after the meeting, the employer (manager/supervisor) can begin to "sow the seeds" that can successfully lead to the whistleblower's termination of employment!

If the employer (manager, supervisor, etc.) expresses some concern in a written communication to the whistleblower, even if there is a meeting with management and an oral discussion thereat of that matter, the whistleblower should then promptly send management a written respectful memorandum (copy kept at home in a safe place) which makes reference to any meeting that took place, and summarizes what the whistleblower said; or otherwise fully responds to the management concern. That way, later, the whistleblower never gets into any "he said -- she said -- they said" difference of opinion over who supposedly said what at any meeting -- and the whistleblower can never be falsely successfully accused of supposedly failing to respond to some concern expressed by management, and/or there be a successful distortion of what was said/presented to management! Without this written record, the whistleblower may find later on, that either management created a "secret" closely held memo (to be used as evidence in the future) that distorts what took place or alleges falsely that the whistleblower was unresponsive or somehow was negligent in adequately responding to a management concern or concerns.

NUMBER 51: DEFAMATION/LIABLE/SLANDER/TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE: Some whistleblowers, after they blow-the-whistle to the Government (Local, State, and/or Federal), or simultaneously, they go Public with their Whistleblowing. Sometimes they contact customers of their employer, or former employer, intending to "educate" them as to the alleged "goings on". Talk about a formula for whistleblower self-destruction, that surely is it!

While Whistleblowing to Government Agencies, done in good faith, and with a reasonable belief that some wrongdoing has actually occurred, is usually a "protected disclosure", Whistleblowing to present or former customers of ones present or former employer, amounts to an open invitation for one's employer or former employer to sue the Whistleblower for Defamation and/or Liable and/or Slander and/or Tortious Interference with a Business Relationship. Some may believe that such Whistleblowing, if it contains the truth, that is a defense to any Defamation and/or Liable and/or Slander and/or Tortious Interference Claim/Litigation. The unfortunate reality is that proving something is true, is sometimes illusive; and truth is often open to interpretation. The moral of the story is, that any Whistleblower who strays outside Protected Disclosure channels, is flirting with their own professional and financial suicide!

NUMBER 50: SNOOPING: If your Employer asks you to in effect "snoop" (secretly observe) upon another employee or group of employees, and secretly report back what they are doing or not doing, take the necessary precautions or you may find yourself soon unemployed!

Most employees will initially feel honored or special if their Employer asks them to be a sort of "Confidant" to find out for the Employer what other employees are doing or not doing. This is especially true if the Employer says that wrongdoing by an employee or other employees is suspected. If one undertakes willingly and unconditionally such a "snooping" role, there can be later complications arise. Often times the employer later will not keep the confidentiality of the identity of the employee who did the snooping, and other employees will find out. Or, other employees figure out who the "snooper" was. The end result is the ostracizing of the "snooper" by fellow employees, and often there arises in the workplace animosity and all sorts of trouble and discontent in the workforce. To solve the problem the Employer wrongly fires or places on layoff the "snooper" or "Confidant" to seemingly appease the other upset employees. Most "snoopers" or "Confidants" may wrongly assume that they will automatically have some Whistleblowing protection when they report to the employer the suspected wrongdoing perpetrated by other employees. The reality may be that they actually have no protection if the employer was not involved in, nor was supporting/tolerating that wrongdoing. Thus, there is a distinct difference between alleged wrongdoing committed by an employer and the alleged wrongdoing committed by employees without the employer's participation, support, or specific knowledge. Whistleblowing on the former situation could possibly be protected, whereas in the latter situation in all probability will not be protected. Whistleblowing protection is usually intended/designed to protect an employee from retaliation, who blows-the-whistle on wrongdoing being perpetrated by the employer (not wrongdoing which is unsupported by management and being perpetrated by a non-management/non-supervisory employee). So, the moral of the story is, unless you obtain a written guarantee in advance, from your Employer, of guaranteed continued employment in exchange for "snooping" or being a "Confidant", don't agree to undertake that role, which otherwise is surely going to be detrimental to your own employment!

NUMBER 49: PRIVATE SECTOR VS. PUBLIC SECTOR: Sometimes it is difficult for a whistleblower to positively know whether his or her employer is in the Private (Business/Industry) Sector, or whether one's employer is in the Public (local, State, or Federal Government) Sector. There can be some entities that could be legally considered, for purposes of Whistleblowing protection statutes, as a Public rather than a Private Sector entity. For example, perhaps, but not absolute, a Contractor providing Transportation services in a City. The effect of choosing the wrong Statute to sue under, as a whistleblower, can be devastating. Sometimes even a person's Attorney can make the wrong choice with devastating adverse litigation results for the whistleblower!

Laws (Statutes) pertaining to Whistleblowing protection, often have different Statute of Limitations (Time in which to file a civil lawsuit) pertaining to Private Sector versus Public Sector employment. If for example, a lawsuit is initially filed by the Whistleblower (his or her Attorney) under Private Sector Statutes, but is dismissed some time later by the Court, because the Employer was in reality a Public Sector Employer, by then it may be too late to file a lawsuit under Public Sector Statutes, because the Statute of Limitations may have expired for a Public Sector lawsuit. The reverse could be true if one files a lawsuit under Public Sector Statutes, but it later turns out Private Sector Statutes apply, but by then it may be too late to file a Private Sector Statutes Whistleblower lawsuit. If we ourselves hypothetically had a Whistleblower Cause of Action to file as a lawsuit, with us hypothetically as Plaintiffs, and if it was not absolutely, unquestionably, without any doubt whatsoever, and positively clear to us whether Public Sector or Private Sector Statutes apply, we would consider (after obtaining legal advice) possibly filing under both in the same lawsuit, but filing within the timeframe of the Statutes having the shortest Statute of Limitations; and give a good faith explanation to the Court why there might be confusion on which Statutes apply. Be aware that there can be confusion about whether some Public Sector Agencies are Public Sector or Private Sector as regards Whistleblowing protection statutes, because for some operations in the Entity, like Procurement, they may act like Private Sector entities, yet for other operations may act like Public Sector Entities. In any event, be "safe" rather than sorry as regards choosing the proper Statutes under which to bring a lawsuit, and beware of the Employer (or former employer) giving misleading indications on whether they are actually a Public or Private Sector Entity with regard to Whistleblowing matters and litigation!

NUMBER 48: MIRAGE or REALITY: An important aspect in whether or not an act of blowing-the-whistle can become a "protected activity" often depends upon whether or not what the whistleblower blew-the-whistle on was in fact "wrongdoing" of some kind, thus a "reality"; or whether the circumstances are such that there really was no wrongdoing, thus a "mirage"!

If a Whistleblower, having a good faith belief that wrongdoing has occurred, blows-the-whistle on a situation which involves public safety and/or public health, in all probability the Whistleblower may later be given the benefit of any doubt, and may end up having made a "protected disclosure" for which maybe/hopefully there will be a remedy for the Whistleblower if there is retaliation by the person or entity upon whom the whistle-was-blown; even if the Whistleblower was wrong and what looked like wrongdoing was not in fact such -- thus only a "mirage". However, if the matter involves other than public safety and/or public health, it is possible that a Whistleblower who blows-the-whistle on a situation that is in reality a "mirage" of wrongdoing, and there really is no illegality, chances are the Whistleblower may be "out in the cold" so to speak as regards any whistleblowing having been so called "protected Activity". Hence, the "moral of the story" is, to get competent and knowledgeable proper advice in advance, especially on non-public safety and/or non-public health situations, before blowing-the-whistle, to ensure that irreparable harm is not done to one's professional career and personal finances. Thus, find out in advance if the alleged wrongdoing perceived is actually real or just a mirage!

NUMBER 47: AN EMPLOYER TRICK: After an occurrence of employee whistleblowing, some employers will create some workplace situation, seemingly not related to any matter that the employee blew-the-whistle on, for the purpose of creating a seemingly legitimate circumstance that can be used for firing the employee or imposing other disciplinary action!

The whistleblowing action may possibly have been a protected action by some Federal or State Statute, or Regulation, or Court Case precedent or Public Policy Exception to at-will-employment doctrine, etc. In order to attempt to defeat that protection, some employers (at some time after the whistleblowing incident has occurred) will create some situation like asking the employee to do something that the employee wrongly assumes may be improper and refuses to perform it, or "goads" the employee into being insubordinate or disrespectful to management/supervision, or does something else to make the employee commit an "offense" that is otherwise "punishable" under employer policy. Then, when the whistleblower later tries to bring litigation under whistleblowing protection for employer retaliation, the employer denies that it was retaliation and uses the artificially created "incident" (pretext situation) to attempt to defeat the whistleblower's court case. So, after whistleblowing, beware of this "trap" and get appropriate advice before being "victimized" by it!

NUMBER 46: PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE: An employee in a "probationary" employment status (usually for 90 days after starting employment) needs to be careful, by considering when to blow- the-whistle!

If a probationary employee blows the whistle before completing probation and attaining "permanent employment" status, it is easier for the employer to retaliate and use an "invented" reason to terminate the employee's employment. One situation where an employee should blow the whistle while in a probationary employment status, would be if the employee has knowledge that the employer or someone in management or non-management is imminently creating a situation where there is a threat or danger to public health and/or public safety. Another reason for blowing-the-whistle in a probationary employee status is when the employee is being somehow forced to participate in some illegal act or wrongdoing, and delaying reporting the matter is not feasible; and delay could later imperil the employee/whistleblower in wrongdoing participation!

By prematurely speaking to fellow employees, about alleged employer wrongdoing, not only does the whistleblower risk that someone might prematurely "squeal" to the employer to gain favor, but the whistleblower eliminates any possibility of later making an anonymous complaint because others will easily know the whistleblower's identity; and so will the employer. (Note: This tip does not mean that anonymous whistleblowing is appropriate in all situations).

NUMBER 44: SUGGESTION: If your employer ever asks you for your suggestions on what can be improved and/or what you don't like in your workplace, you could become a "hero" with your comments (if the employer's interest in your comments/suggestions is genuine), or you could soon become "unemployed" (if the employer is really seeking to find out which employees are "disgruntled/unhappy")!

Employers who have genuine interests in employee suggestions, have a formal suggestion program and always welcome suggestions/comments from employees at all times. Additionally, they have a program of employee recognition throughout the workplace, and publicized rewards for suggestions, that amount to a genuine thank you. On the other hand, if none of that formality and recognition exists, then it may be for an "ulterior" purpose that the employer suddenly, out of the blue, wants suggestions from an employee, or wants to know what the employee sees as wrong in the workplace!

NUMBER 43: LOCKED-IN: Whistleblowers who decide to have a lawsuit filed in a state or federal court, sometimes fail to realize the consequences of possibly being locked-in to that litigation by a Contingency Fee Contract with an attorney.

While a Contingency Fee Contract with an attorney (no attorneys fees payable to one's attorney if no win in court or no settlement is achieved -- however litigation costs and fees -- other than Attorney's Fees -- may still be payable) is usually a blessing, because it enables a whistleblower to undertake/commence litigation that he or she might not otherwise be able to afford if they had to use their own money upfront. On the other hand, there will probably be a provision in the Contingency Fee Contract that requires the whistleblower to pay the attorney all accumulated attorney's fees and costs if the whistleblower wants to drop the lawsuit but the whistleblower's attorney does not! So, the moral of the story is, that all whistleblowers who sign a Contingency Fee Contract with an attorney, are locked-in to that litigation and cannot get out of it without their attorney's concurrence/agreement; unless they "buy their way out"! Thus whistleblowers who commence Contingency Fee Contract litigation cannot later back out if they get discouraged, upset, or want to just walk away -- they are "locked-in for the duration of the litigation. Thus, do not start something (Contingency Fee Contract litigation) unless you are positive that no matter what later happens, you will never want to "back out/abandon ship"!

NUMBER 42: SPOUSE: If your spouse also works for the same employer as you do, you can usually expect retaliation to occur to you, and sometimes to your spouse, after you blow-the-whistle!

Whistleblowers, with spouses who work for the same employer, often neglect to consider the probable consequences to their spouse, in a whistleblowing situation. It is a mistake to assume that the spouse will not be considered as a "whistleblowing accomplice" by the employer, even though that spouse takes no part in the whistleblowing (and on rare occasions may even not be in agreement with blowing-the-whistle)! The moral of this story is, to be smart and plan ahead -- sometimes anonymous whistleblowing is the solution for avoiding an employer's retaliation to both the whistleblower and spouse -- however, the potential success of this strategy depends on many things like how many employees there are, whether the employer can easily detect who blew the whistle, etc.

There is a vast difference between being the victim of something and merely observing that something adverse is happening to someone else. The actual "victim" may be protected from retaliation for blowing-the-whistle on the wrongdoing; whereas, an "observer" might not have any protection from retaliation for reporting the "observation" to the employer. Therefore, while it might be appropriate, behind the scenes, for the "observer" to confidentially encourage the "victim" to get legal advice, if the "observer" himself or herself blows-the-whistle, it may be employment "suicide" for the "observer", or result in employer retaliation against the observer -- for which there might not be any whistleblowing protection -- because the "observer" was not the original victim of the sexual harassment! Besides, suppose the "observer" blows the whistle but then the victim lies and denies there ever was sexual harassment (because they fear employer retaliation and/or job loss). That leaves the "observer" who blows-the-whistle, "up the creek in a canoe, without any paddle"!

Whistleblowers (or their attorney) sometimes contact employees who have been placed on layoff by the whistleblower's employer (former employer) thinking that they will help the whistleblower. However, in many cases the laid off employee sees the situation as one in which they can gain favor with the employer and perhaps get recalled back to work -- by 'blabbing" all to the employer. This seldom if ever works -- if anything, almost guaranteeing that the laid off worker will never be recalled -- but the tragic thing is that the employer (former employer) gets valuable information from the laid off employee on the whistleblower's strategy and all that is being said and done. Thus the laid off employee becomes a "traitor" to the whistleblower! The reason the laid off employee probably will not be rewarded by the employer (by recall to work) is that the laid off employee demonstrates that they will be disloyal to a fellow worker or anybody else, for purposes of self enrichment -- thereby making them untrustworthy -- and the employer would fear that their loyalty might again switch in the future.

NUMBER 39: WITNESSES: It is a mistake to assume that fellow employees where you work or worked will testify in your behalf during any whistleblower litigation pursued in Court!

Whistleblowers mistakenly assume that just because a fellow worker, or a worker still employed at the whistleblower's former place of employment, has said things privately to the whistleblower, like knowing the whistleblower was "wronged", that does not mean the person will testify as a witness and possibly jeopardize their own employment. Additionally, whistleblowers who proceed to litigation should use utmost caution in requiring any fellow employees to testify, because the employment of the witness can be jeopardized! If a fellow employee testifies for the whistleblower, even involuntarily, what's to stop the employer from retaliating against that witness. So the moral of the story is, if you don't already have an affidavit from a fellow employee witness, most likely they will later refuse to voluntarily come forward in your behalf, and you will be left embarrassed, angry, and perplexed at that occurrence! Former employees can make the best witnesses for the whistleblower, because they are "beyond the reach" of their former employer, thus have nothing to lose by their truthful testimony. (However, see Number 40 with regard to employees on lay-off.)

NUMBER 38: ENTRAPMENT: Do not fall for certain employer "antics" that could entrap you into a situation of being insubordinate and thereby give your employer grounds to fire you!

Once a whistleblower has blown the whistle, it is often a favorite trick of the whistleblower's Supervisor and/or Manager to do one or more of the following things:

Not saying good morning to the whistleblower; but saying it to all others in the vicinity;

Criticizing the whistleblower's work in a voice loud enough to be heard by others in the vicinity;

Relaying instructions to the whistleblower through other employees, as though the whistleblower were no longer worthy of being communicated with directly by the Supervisor and/or Manager;

Giving the whistleblower almost impossible tasks to accomplish in a reasonable period of time, and loading the whistleblower with a huge amount of work to do;

These, and other, Supervisor/Management immature and distasteful actions, are all intended to cause the whistleblower to "erupt" and blurt out something that will be disrespectful and insubordinate -- thereby achieving the intended management purpose of getting the whistleblower fired! The whistleblower must "keep his or her cool", smile a lot, try to continue to do the best job they can, and under no circumstances "disrespectfully talk back"! Likewise, do not criticize a supervisor, a manager, or the employer, to a fellow worker in or out of the workplace, because that person might "squeal" to management to gain personal favor; and management will then have the "goods on" the whistleblower for termination action! Often times, when management sees that its efforts to get the whistleblower to be disrespectful, have failed, they will tire of "playing those games" and will give up those antics. However, if the whistleblower complains to management about the "treatment", that only gives the perpetrators renewed joy and pleasure, thus they are motivated to continue with their "childish foolishness"!

An employer can "set a trap" for the whistleblower, by having discussions about supposedly giving the employee money to "get rid" of that employee. The whistleblower might orally agree to accept such "payment" but the agreement might not be finalized in writing (nor the employer admit in writing that it was the employer who initiated the payment discussions in the first place). The employer then might turn around and fire the whistleblower on a pretext (but really in retaliation for the whistleblowing). Then, when the whistleblower sues in court for the retaliation, the employer swears that in the employer's opinion the whistleblower was just trying to extort money from the employer, in exchange for employee silence and employee "walking away"! This "employer ruse" when combined with a concocted employer story that the whistleblower is supposedly an evil person, could cause a judge to dismiss the whistleblower's case or, if the matter gets to trial, the jury might assume the whistleblower only had an interest in "hush money" and not any alleged wrongdoing that was supposedly being perpetrated by the employer. Thus, such discussions (the whistleblower receiving money to walk away from employment) could well later jeopardize any whistleblowing protection that the whistleblower might otherwise have! The moral of the story is, never give the employer a means to concoct a "story" alleging attempted whistleblower "extortion" of money!

NUMBER 36: FUTURE: Many whistleblowers focus their full attention and energy only upon their workplace situation and any employer retaliation that has or is taking place; however, they must also focus on future considerations as regards their professional career and future employment matters. Otherwise, even if they win the workplace "battle" they might still ultimately lose the future employment "war"!

The old adage about "Just take it one day at a time" does not apply in whistleblowing situations. The whistleblower must constantly think ahead and plan, both short and long range. The whistleblower must hypothesize about the possibility of losing current employment and plan "how best" to then locate new employment if the worst should happen. The whistleblower must never settle an old/former workplace situation without getting the prior employment record "cleaned up". See Tip Number 34 below. While genuinely blowing-the-whistle is an admirable and courageous act, trying to unnecessarily "incinerate" the reputations of many others (in retaliation for the grief caused to the whistleblower by others) is "foolhardy" and destructively injurious to the whistleblower's professional future! The whistleblower should say what needs to be said and professionally do what needs to be done, but "slinging mud" in the process only drags the whistleblower down into the "gutter" and makes future potential employers wary of hiring that whistleblower. A blowing-of-the-whistle in a mature, professional, factual, and responsible way, without visible emotion and without vindictiveness, is the way to do it. That may enhance the worth of the whistleblower to a future prospective employer; who, unlike the whistleblower's former employer, may well appreciate that the whistleblower has the honesty and the courage to preclude the employer from having a wrongdoing situation in their workplace and employees remaining silent and letting the employer suffer the legal consequences when the wrongdoing is eventually discovered by Government authorities!

NUMBER 35: APPLICATION (Employment): If a whistleblower was fired by a prior employer for blowing-the-whistle, on future employment applications, with reference to that prior employment, where it says "Reason for Leaving Employment", rather than saying "Fired", put on the Employment Application "Confidential in Nature -- Will discuss during Job Interview."

Whenever a potential employer sees the word "fired" in an employment application, in all probability that is immediately the end of any consideration of that application. On the other hand, a "Confidential in Nature" might at least get a whistleblower to the interview stage; where the circumstances can be briefly and unemotionally explained, if questioned about it. Take care however, during any job interview, not to "bad-mouth" the employer who fired you -- since prospective employers do not like prospective employees who "go out of their way" to say bad things about prior employers!

A Settlement Agreement should always be reviewed by the Whistleblower's personal Attorney before the whistleblower signs it; however, make sure the attorney has extensive experience with employment cases Settlement Agreements. Make sure that the Settlement Agreement binds the employer, affiliates, agents, attorneys, business units, directors, divisions, employees, insurers, joint ventures, officers, owners, parent corporation, representatives, servants, subsidiaries, successors, and all persons acting by, through, under, or in concert with any or all of them. Make sure the Settlement Agreement requires the company to immediately purge from all its records and files, and destroy, all documents that contain adverse information and/or allegations about the whistleblower. Make sure the Settlement Agreement requires the Company to give a good (or at least a "neutral") employment reference in the future, for the whistleblower, whenever they are contacted by or on behalf of a future prospective employer from whom the whistleblower seeks (or already has) employment. Make sure the Settlement Agreement requires the Company to reflect in its personnel records that the employment ended by "employee resignation" (not termination of employment or any other adverse reason). Make sure the Settlement Agreement provides for payment of Attorney's Fees, Costs, and Damages to a party who prevails in court, who instituted litigation for any violation of the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The whistleblower must think well beyond the Settlement timeframe and be concerned with what will happen as new employment is sought elsewhere; and what skeletons will "haunt" and/or impede the whistleblower in the future, if the Settlement Agreement is not properly and adequately worded to provide for the whistleblower's professional working future!

NUMBER 33: VICTIM: Any adversity which may occur from whistleblowing should only be a finite event in one's life, not something that makes the whistleblower a "victim" for the rest of their life!

A tragic mistake is made by many whistleblowers who have been retaliated against by their employers. They continually think of themselves as "victims" and they repeatedly, even months or years after the retaliation occurrence, still think about and see themselves as "victims"; and in effect sort of "drown" in their own unnecessary self imposed "pity". Then, that adversely affects relationships with family, friends, and associates! In truth, it is not until the whistleblower stops thinking of themselves as a "victim" that they can move beyond the adversity and begin to "heal" and become a productive person, having the joy of life and everyday living restored to themselves. By not remembering the whistleblowing only with a sense of pride in having done the honorable thing, some whistleblowers instead focus entirely on any adversity that developed, tragically letting that overshadow all else, to the detriment of their mental well-being and happiness. So, do let go of the "I am a victim" thoughts, (and you will be letting go of memories of events that can only plunge you into mental despair); otherwise, the beauty and happiness of a refreshed life, with joy of family, friends and peers, will regrettably elude you!

Is not uncommon for whistleblowers who have settled a civil lawsuit before filed or after, to later in thinking about things, change their minds and then want to go back and "get the defendant/former employer". We are inclined to believe that it is too late, once a confidentiality settlement agreement is reached, to go back and start again! Since some settlements are specifically intended to compensate a victim for an employer's civil wrongdoing, once having been compensated, we think it is ill advised to want to then in effect "continue the battle against the employer". It is not uncommon for whistleblowers to lament and later say, "but I only now want to make sure the employer never does this to anybody else!" If one truly has such a motivation, then they should have resisted/refused settlement until such time as the employer's alleged conduct was fully made public and all other employees made aware of the alleged "goings-on" as regards the employer's wrongdoing, and the public-at-large also informed. For a person to knowingly sign a confidentiality agreement, promising not to reveal the employer's alleged civil (as opposed to criminal) wrongdoing, in exchange for the payment of money, taking the employer's money, then later saying "Now that I have the money I want to renege on what I promised", is to us a less than honorable thing to do. It does not matter in the least whether the amount of money offered by the former employer and accepted by the former employee was supposedly (in the whistleblower's later perception) too little or not. That cannot be a later issue on which to instigate what might be a unilateral disregard of what amounts to a signed contract between former employer and employee. In our perception, it is a common (and we presume legitimate/lawful practice) for employers who have "civilly wronged" (discrimination, false accusation, slander, etc.) an employee, to monetarily compensate the employee for the wrong and bind the employee to confidentially.

The "ruse" perpetrated upon the whistleblower works this way. The worker, supervisor or manager pretends to be privately friendly and overly sympathetic with the whistleblower; and even goes so far as to "bad mouth" another worker, supervisor, manager, executive management or top management who is causing the whistleblower much trouble. This criticizing technique is truly a "melt the heart of the whistleblower" and "breaks down" the whistleblower's natural tendency to be "cautious"! The whistleblower then sees the "double-agent" as a great friend and confidant whom the whistleblower eagerly tells all to, and even tells what they may be planning to do. Behind the whistleblower's back, this "double-agent" goes back to the employer/management and tells every word that the whistleblower said. The "double-agent's" motivation is to curry favor with the employer and reap some sort of instant or later reward! The "poor" unsuspecting whistleblower, who thought they were having a confidential conversation with a "confidant" may discover too late (or maybe never) that they were "double-crossed" and betrayed by someone who had pretended to be a friend but was in reality the employer's "spy". Of course, there are exceptions to all this, and a perceived workplace friend might in fact be a true and loyal friend after all -- however, the stakes are too high for a whistleblower to make a mistake in this matter -- so, it may be best to "keep one's mouth shut" and not even risk being betrayed in the workplace!

NUMBER 30: PROTECTION: Some Whistleblowers, who are still employed and believe that there is a statute/law/regulation that gives them protection in their workplace for their whistleblowing, may erroneously make themselves into a sort of fictional/imaginary "superhuman" who seemingly has the power to confront and take to task supervisors/managers; however, that mistaken frame of mind if it exists, might well get the whistleblower fired on something that they might miscalculate on!

When there is some statute/law/regulation that provides whistleblowing protection, in our view, it does not remove from management/supervisors their normal, legitimate and lawful prerogatives -- it just means that they cannot adversely change the terms and conditions of the Whistleblower's employment. In our view, it does not mean that the employer cannot fire the whistleblower for legitimate and lawful cause unrelated to the whistleblowing (i.e., insubordination, theft of employer property, intentional violation of employer written policies and/or procedures, etc.). Further, whistleblowing protection does not mean that the employer must be "nice" to the whistleblower. It does not mean that the employer has to give the employee any overtime not mandated by rule, regulation, law or contract. Whistleblowing protection does not mean many other things. The moral of the story is, not to become complacent and "invincible thinking" just because you believe you may qualify for whistleblowing protection -- because it is not "absolute" for everything!

A supervisor or manager, who makes unreasonable (but not unlawful) requests/demands, or who does not speak pleasantly to his (or her) subordinates, or who erroneously says an employee can be fired by him (or her) when actually they might not have such unilateral authority -- and the like -- is committing "insensitive" and abominable acts; however, those acts do not rise to the level of "wrongdoing" in the "traditional" sense. Wrongdoing is breaking/violating a Federal, State, or Local Government law, rule, or regulation, or violating an Employer's lawful rules, regulations, policies, or procedures. So, before blowing-the-whistle on any situation that amounts only to matters of insensitivity and/or abomination, and expecting any whistleblowing protection for that, think twice about the adverse retaliatory consequences that might result, for which you may have no whistleblowing protection!

NUMBER 28: ISOLATION: This is one of the most commonly used retaliatory weapons, by employers, against whistleblowers.

Many employers, knowing that if they outright fire a whistleblower, it might lead to litigation, they take a sort of indirect approach. They stop the whistleblower from attending all meetings, conferences, training, and prescribe such limited duties for the whistleblower that almost all contact with fellow employees, supervisors, and management is terminated. Additionally, for hourly employees, they terminate all overtime. Employers hope that the resulting "isolation" will so discourage the whistleblower as to make that employee quit. If a whistleblower is placed in "isolation" it should be interpreted as a distinct sign that the employer wants to "get rid" of the employee, and the isolation is probably permanent rather than temporary.

Any and all employer promises, that are not reduced to writing and signed by the employer, are ones that may never happen, or the employer (its supervisory/management employees) may later deny any such promise/promises were made, or assert that the whistleblower supposedly misunderstood what was said. The moral of the story is -- get all employer promises in writing first, before you agree with, commit to, or sign anything! Better yet, get it in writing first, have your lawyer look at it before you sign any agreement or settlement, to make sure there are no omissions and no "loopholes"!

NUMBER 26: Apology: Whistleblowers who seek or expect a public or private apology from their employer or former employer, Government or Industry/Business, for retaliation or other adversity inflicted upon them, are wasting their time, their money, and their life!

In truth, employers rarely if ever apologize. Even when caught "red handed" in wrongdoing, and if civilly or criminally prosecuted by the Government, they pay the fine (sometimes millions of dollars) but publicly say they do not admit any wrongdoing (and thus they do not apologize to anyone). Whistleblowers must understand that most all employers will in most instances "fight to the death" so to speak, rather than be forced to apologize to a whistleblower; however, employers/former employers sometimes will offer a monetary settlement but still adamantly refuse to apologize. It is a foolish whistleblower who adamantly refuses to accept any money settlement without an apology, instead of wisely unilaterally considering the money settlement as an apology. A whistleblower who vehemently makes a demand for an apology and emphatically states he or she will accept nothing less, is one who has let "self ego" overshadow all as a foolish emotion, instead of letting reality and logic be the catalyst that puts a mutually satisfying end to the controversy!

NUMBER 25: Employment: Whistleblowers, after being retaliated against by their employer and being fired, who are physically able to work but do not immediately aggressively seek replacement employment, may be due for an "eye opening shock"!

We are aware of something called "The Mitigation of Damages Doctrine" which, based upon our understanding, means that a fired employee who intends to sue for back pay damages/recovery is obligated to aggressively seek replacement employment so as to lessen the financial damages upon the employer. (Yes, we know, it is seemingly bizarre that an employer who unlawfully fires an employee, maybe is going to get the advantage of the employee's replacement employment wages reducing the amount of back pay the "lawbreaking" employer has to pay if the employee wins a back pay lawsuit.) The eye opening shock comes when a whistleblower, who is physically able to work, but intentionally sits home thinking that no employment wages means the former employer gets no financial benefit, may discover that "equivalent wages" will be calculated, based upon employer proof that there was replacement employment available in the local community which the whistleblower did not avail himself or herself of, and the theoretical/presumed equivalent wages may be subtracted from any back pay award won in court by the whistleblower. Whistleblowers should definitely check out this aspect with their attorney to get any needed clarification, interpretation, and instructions in the matter!

NUMBER 24: MOTIVE: There is a "good" motive and there is a "bad" motive to blow-the-whistle; however, the whistleblowing must be for the "right" motive!

If the whistleblower is seeking revenge, or seeking to get rid of someone so they can get that person's job, or seeking for whatever reason to destroy an employer, that is whistleblowing for a "bad" motive. A bad motive will usually have dire consequences for the whistleblower and is self-destructive. On the other hand, if the whistleblower seeks to genuinely stop "wrongdoing" or prevent injury to the health and/or safety of the public, or seeks to stop evil/lawbreaking from taking place, that is a "good" motive. The "right" motive is one that is a benefit to others, especially Society!

NUMBER 23: Quitting: Whistleblowers often, in the face of retaliation at work, quit their job; which can be a mistake!

If subsequent litigation develops over the alleged workplace retaliation, and the whistleblower sues for reinstatement with back pay and other damages, the whistleblower having quit their job, necessitates the complicated burden of later proving that the workplace circumstances were really so egregious as to force the whistleblower to quit (constructive discharge). On the other hand, having been fired is surely an undisputable fact -- the "why" is then the only principal controversy. Of course, if a whistleblower is physically and/or mentally "endangered" in the workplace, then the only alternative might be to quit; but short of "endangerment" being the situation -- quitting ones job may give the employer an undeserved benefit in any subsequent litigation.

NUMBER 22: LOYALTY: Whistleblowers (planning to do or already done) often mentally wrestle with the question of loyalty to one's employer, when in fact that should not be a question at all!

With regard to: "loyalty to the employer and debt of honor," if an employer (its management/supervisory personnel) are involved in wrongdoing/fraud/retaliation/discrimination/etc., being perpetrated by and/or condoned even at the highest level of the Company/Organization, then the employer has "broken" an unspoken/unwritten vow of honesty and fairness and honor owed its employees and society. Every employer (Private Sector -Business/Industry and Public Sector - Local Government/State Government/Federal Government -Executive/Legislative/Judicial Branches of Government) have a moral and ethical duty to their Employees and to the Public/Society to run an honest and moral workplace. Under workplace circumstances where that is not the way it is, how can employees remain silent and not "blow the whistle", or needlessly feel disloyalty in any way! Employer loyalty deserves employee loyalty in return; but loyalty cannot be a "one way street" -- flowing only from employee to employer -- loyalty absolutely must flow both ways!

The principle argument that destroys the so called "vindictiveness of whistleblowing" theory (which is flawed), is to imagine an employee discovers something that is a real and serious threat to public safety and/