Performance Management and Whistleblowing: The Linda Tripp Case

Introduction

In the United States, it is generally considered lawful for a public administration employee to be fired for poor performance. Public employees are employed at will, meaning they can be terminated for any reason that is not illegal. Poor performance is not considered an illegal reason for termination, and thus public employees can be fired on those grounds. There are some exceptions to this general rule, however. For example, public employees may not be fired for engaging in protected activities, such as whistleblowing. Additionally, public employees may have contractual protections against being fired for poor performance. These exceptions are relatively rare, and in most cases it is considered lawful to fire a public administration employee for poor performance.

One high-profile case involving human resource management in public administration related to performance management is that of Linda Tripp. It involves using poor performance as a stated reason for termination, but it also involves accusations of retaliation, whistleblowing, and cover-ups. It is therefore a useful case study for understanding the legal issues surrounding how HR management should address performance management with public employees.

Facts of the Case

In 1998, Linda Tripp was fired from her job at the Pentagon. The reason for her firing was officially cited as poor performance, but many believe she was actually retaliated against for her involvement in the Monica Lewinsky scandal (Hicks, 2014). Tripp had secretly recorded conversations with Lewinsky in which Lewinsky detailed her affair with President Clinton, and these tapes played a major role in Clinton's impeachment proceedings. While Tripp's recordings were legal under federal law, her firing raised questions about whether she had been unlawfully retaliated against (Lee & Kleiner, 2011). A court ultimately ruled that Tripp was not protected by anti-retaliation laws, and she was not reinstated to her position.

The Lewinsky affair began in November 1995, when Lewinsky, a 21-year-old White House intern, met President Clinton at a reception. Six months later, she was transferred to work as an aide in the Pentagon's public affairs office. In 1996, Lewinsky confided in Pentagon co-worker Linda Tripp about her relationship with Clinton. The two women were recorded discussing the affair on 20 telephone calls made secretly by Tripp. When news of the tapes broke in 1998, Clinton denied having had "sexual relations" with Lewinsky. However, DNA evidence subsequently confirmed that Clinton had indeed had encounters with her. Following an investigation led by independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr, Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives in December 1998 on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. He was acquitted by the Senate in 1999. Among the consequences for Clinton were his disbarment and a $25,000 fine for giving false testimony in relation to the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.

For Linda Tripp, she was given immunity from felony charges for taping phone conversations without permission, but still faced two lawsuits: one for invasion of privacy, which was later settled, and one for defamation from Monica Lewinsky, which was dismissed. She was also indicted in Maryland on two misdemeanor wiretapping charges, which were later dropped. As for President Clinton, while his reputation was damaged — as reflected in the nickname "Slick Willy" — he remained popular throughout his presidency, and since leaving office his favorability rating reached a high of 66%.

Linda Tripp was widely vilified in both conservative and liberal media outlets. The New York Times described her as a schemer, while others saw her as a whistleblower. From a human resources management perspective, the key fact is that immense pressure was brought to bear on HR managers to terminate Tripp for causing problems higher up the chain of authority.

The Termination Decision

At the time, Tripp was working as a civil servant at the Pentagon when she was approached by literary agent Lucianne Goldberg. Goldberg persuaded Tripp to secretly record conversations with her colleague, Monica Lewinsky, in order to provide evidence of an affair between Lewinsky and President Bill Clinton (Cloud & Barnes, 1998). Tripp provided tapes of these conversations to independent counsel Kenneth Starr, who was investigating Clinton. The release of the tapes caused a media sensation, and Clinton was subsequently impeached by the House of Representatives. In the aftermath of the scandal, Tripp was fired from her job at the Pentagon. The official reason given for her termination was that she had violated the Privacy Act by disclosing confidential information about Lewinsky. However, many believe that Tripp was actually fired because she had become a public embarrassment to the Clinton administration. In short, her termination was directly tied to poor performance in terms of creating serious difficulties for her employers (Muralidhar & Sarathy, 2009). Lawsuits followed and the spotlight grew increasingly large on all stakeholders involved. Ultimately, Tripp was not reinstated to her position.

Conclusion

The case of Linda Tripp and her termination will probably remain controversial for as long as it is discussed. However, several issues could have been addressed by HR from the outset — such as clearly communicating expectations, opening a channel for internal reporting, and establishing regular performance reviews — and doing so could have helped manage or even prevent the situation. Proactive HR care of this kind can prevent a great deal of difficulty down the road.

References

Cloud, J., & Barnes, E. (1998). Lucianne Goldberg: In pursuit of Clinton. Time, 151(4), 44–44.

Hicks, J. (2014). 5 of the most famous federal whistleblowers. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2014/07/31/5-famous-whistleblowers-from-the-federal-government/

Lee, K., & Kleiner, B. (2011). Whistleblower retaliation in the public sector. Public Personnel Management, 40(4), 341–348.

Muralidhar, K., & Sarathy, R. (2009). Privacy violations in accountability data released to the public by state educational agencies. In Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology Research Conference. Washington, DC: Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology.