Corporate Whistleblowing: The Ameriprise Case Study
This paper explores corporate whistleblowing with a focus on a real case involving a former Ameriprise branch manager who alleged retaliatory termination after reporting serious SEC regulatory violations. The paper begins by defining whistleblowing and surveying the competing perceptions of whistleblowers — as courageous advocates or disgruntled employees with personal motives. It then examines the Ameriprise case in detail, describing the specific violations reported, the company's limited response, and the subsequent wrongful termination lawsuit. The paper concludes that the whistleblower lacked adequate protection under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
- Defining Whistleblowing: Defines whistleblowing and its scope
- Perceptions of Whistleblowers: Competing views on whistleblower motivations
- The Ameriprise Case: SEC violations reported and lawsuit details
- Consequences and Legal Outcomes: Retaliation, damages sought, and legal protections
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its argument in a concrete, real-world case, making abstract ethical and legal concepts tangible for the reader.
- It fairly presents opposing perspectives on whistleblowing before applying them to the specific case, demonstrating balanced analytical thinking.
- The conclusion ties the case back to a specific legal framework (the Sarbanes-Oxley Act), giving the analysis a clear evaluative endpoint.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper uses a case study structure within a short essay format: it establishes a conceptual framework (definition and competing perceptions of whistleblowing), then applies that framework to a specific real-world incident. This technique — concept-then-application — is a fundamental pattern in business and ethics writing and allows the writer to move from general principle to particular judgment efficiently.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a definitional section that clarifies the scope of whistleblowing and distinguishes internal from external reporting. A second section presents two opposing views on whistleblower motivations. The bulk of the paper is devoted to the Ameriprise case: the violations reported, the company's minimal response, the termination, and the subsequent lawsuit. A brief concluding section evaluates the legal protections available to the whistleblower. References follow APA format.
Defining Whistleblowing
The term whistleblowing refers to an attempt made by a current or former employee of a firm to warn the public about serious dangers or wrongdoings concealed or created by that firm. Corporate and healthcare literature offers multiple definitions of the term, all of which highlight the significance of advocacy — that is, the protection of individuals who are at risk of harm. For the purposes of this paper, the definition distinguishes internal reporting of an issue within the company from external whistleblowing (Lachman, 2008). Typically, whistleblowers are perceived as courageous individuals who oppose a company's practices. Whether in the healthcare or corporate field, their situations are analogous to those analyzed by Glazer and Glazer in their study of sixty-four whistleblowers, and to the film The Insider, which portrayed the tobacco industry's efforts to conceal the addictive properties of tobacco. Several real-world examples — such as that of registered nurse Barry Adams — reveal that those who confront powerful organizations frequently face serious adversity.
Perceptions of Whistleblowers
The issue of whistleblowers who expose potential organizational wrongdoing has sparked considerable controversy. Some regard them as noble individuals willing to make personal and professional sacrifices in order to uncover harmful, wasteful, or deceitful organizational practices. Others, however, claim that whistleblowers are generally disgruntled employees who, with malicious intent, make wild accusations against companies they believe have mistreated them, motivated by personal self-interest (Barnett, 1992).
As is often the case, the truth likely lies somewhere between these two extremes. While whistleblowers do expose genuine abuses of authority by governmental and corporate decision-makers, they frequently suffer retaliation for their moral resistance. At the same time, whistleblower accusations can sometimes be mistaken, and their intent occasionally malicious. Their actions can be disruptive to organizational functioning and may cause serious harm to wrongfully accused individuals. Regardless of one's personal views on the subject, corporate policymakers must address it objectively. It cannot be dismissed, given the potentially destructive consequences for both the company and its employees. The SEC's whistleblower program reflects the growing recognition of this complexity at the regulatory level.
References
Barnett, T. (1992). Why your company should have a whistleblowing policy. SAM Advanced Management Journal. Retrieved from http://ethics.csc.ncsu.edu/old/12_00/basics/whistle/rst/wstlblo_policy
Lachman, V. (2008). Whistleblowers: Troublemakers or virtuous nurses? MEDSURG Nursing, 17(2). Retrieved from http://citationproducer.com/apa-citation/cite/journal.html
(n.d.). Fired Ameriprise manager cries foul. Financial Advisor Magazine. Retrieved July 19, 2016, from http://www.fa-mag.com/news/fired-amerprise-manager-cries-foul-6126.html
(2016). Ameriprise whistleblower sues, saying management breaks law frequently. Stock Broker Lawyer. Retrieved July 18, 2016, from
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.