Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Whistle-Blower Case Study Based on Oklahoma Law
It may appear common-sense that Janet and Darla are whistle-blowers; they saw something wrong at their workplace (another employee potentially stealing drugs and committing fraud), and notified their employer. However, while they may have effectively blown the whistle on potential fraud, they are also working in a state with "at will" employment laws, which states employers can fire employees for any reason (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2014).
When the Federal court looks at the appeal they will need to assess whether or not Janet and Darla have met the requirements to be classified as whistle-blowers, and assess whether or not their dismissal could be seen as retaliation for whistle-blowing (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2014). If classified as whistle-blowers they would be protected from retaliation by the employer. The case to consider is that of Groce v. Foster, 880 P.2d902 (Okla. 1994), which gave five exceptions which would prevent whistle blowers being fired under the 'at will' doctrine, the relevant exception requires them to show that...
Indeed, as required Janet and Darla are able to show that the actions they were reporting was also ready stated as against public policy in statutes. Therefore, the first element of the requirement is met.
The difficulty may be with the second element of the requirement. This is to show that the dismissal was linked to the whistle-blowing, and that it was either in retaliation, bad faith, or the result of malice. This can be a difficult assessment, as it requires the court to consider the underlying motivation of the person who dismissed them. The court may consider issues such as the proximity or potential relationship of the dismissal to the whistle-blowing event, and the reasons given by the employer for the dismissal. In this case the reasons do create a direct link to the event, as Janet and Darla did not follow the procedures laid down for whistle blowing, instead of reporting their suspicions to the accused employees immediate superior, they reported it to a different manager, effectivity breaching protocol. Janet and Darla argued it was undertaken in this manner as they believed the accused to have a good relationship with the…
References
Bennett-Alexander, D; Hartman, L. (2014). Employment Law for Business. Mcgraw-Hill Education
Tromal, D R; Schilling, (2014). Managing Human Resources and Collective Bargaining, R&L Education
There is an increasing recognition of this not only among investigators and regulators, but also among businesses and employees alike. Clearly, the general attitude of employers and employees towards whistle blowing is changing with time. Generally, this is the result of consequences generated by corporate wrongdoing, and also by the increase of importance attached to ethical business practices. Corporate responsibility in terms of both society and the environment has seen
A suggestion within the company, or a well-spoken word can often end the problem before going public with it is necessary ("Ethical Dissent," n.d.). The thought behind this is that whistle blowing, or drawing public attention to an issue, actually makes a problem worse, when privately addressing could make it better. In addition, those who condemn the practice may also mention the negative professional consequences, such as firing, that
WorldCom: The Ethics of Whistle-Blowing In recent years, it has not been easy for employees to completely trust the corporations for which they work. Accounting scandals have made the average employee question business practices unlike before. The large corporate American framework built in culture; vision, core values, accountability and self-worth seem to have gone out the window with a certain degree of worry. Is it risky to work for a big
Whistle Blowing Introduction and History of Whistle Blowing Whistle blowing is the revealing of immoral, illegal or illegitimate deeds to authorities. The authorities may be insiders or from outside the affected organization. Many cases of whistle blowing involve people revealing information to outsiders especially media organizations or pressure groups about an act they consider to be irresponsible, irregular or illegal (Robbins, 1993). Cases of whistle blowing have increased dramatically in the recent
Whistle-Blowing and Sarbanes-Oxley The relevance of whistleblowers in an organizational setting cannot be overstated. As a matter of fact, whistleblowers have in the past helped bring about the much needed changes in organizations. They can, therefore, be referred to as guardians of public accountability. It is, however, important to note that whistleblowing does have its own unique challenges. This is particularly the case given that whistleblowers risk isolation, ridicule, loss of
According to Moberly (2007) "during its first three years, only 3.6% of Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblowers won relief through the initial administrative process that adjudicates such claims, and only 6.5% of whistleblowers won appeals through the process... administrative decision makers strictly construed, and in some cases misapplied, Sarbanes-Oxley's substantive protections to the significant disadvantage of employees" (p. 65). Legal questions also arise regarding an employee's duty to speak out against a legal