Opinion ID: 473674
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Expose corruption whenever discovered.

Text: 139 Pub.L. No. 96-303, 94 Stat. 855 (1980), reproduced as a note to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7301. 140 In enacting the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Pub.L. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1121 (CSRA), Congress stated its intent to provide new protections for employees who disclose illegal or improper Government conduct. S.Rep. No. 969, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 2, reprinted in 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 2723, 2724 (Senate Report). The legislative history makes clear that the CSRA 141 gives the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Special Counsel explicit authority to protect whistle blowers--Federal employees who disclose illegal or improper government activities. Often, the whistle blower's reward for dedication to the highest moral principles is harassment and abuse. Whistle blowers frequently encounter severe damage to their careers and substantial economic loss. 142 Protecting employees who disclose government illegality, waste, and corruption is a major step toward a more effective civil service. In the vast Federal bureaucracy it is not difficult to conceal wrongdoing provided that no one summons the courage to disclose the truth. Whenever misdeeds take place in a Federal agency, there are employees who know that it has occurred, and who are outraged by it. What is needed is a means to assure them that they will not suffer if they help uncover and correct administrative abuses. What is needed is a means to protect the Pentagon employee who discloses billions of dollars in cost overruns, the GSA employee who discloses widespread fraud, and the nuclear engineer who questions the safety of certain nuclear plants. These conscientious civil servants deserve statutory protection rather than bureaucratic harassment and intimidation. 143 Id. at 8, 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News at 2730. 144 The Senate Report is explicit that a government employee is ... to be protected against any infringement of ... constitutional rights. Id. at 19, 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News at 2741. Furthermore, the limitation of protection in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 2302(b)(8)(A) to disclosures not prohibited by law was narrowed by the Senate from the House proposed language not prohibited by law, rule, or regulation, as that broader language would encourage the adoption of internal procedural regulations against disclosure, and thereby enable an agency to discourage an employee from coming forward with allegations of wrongdoing. Id. at 21, 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News at 2743. The Conference Committee adopted the Senate approach, stating: 145 The reference to disclosures specifically prohibited by law is meant to refer to statutory law and court interpretations of those statutes. It does not refer to agency rules and regulations. 146 H.R.Conf.Rep. No. 1717, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 130, reprinted in 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 2860, 2864. 147 Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 2302(b)(8)(A), Mr. Fiorillo had the burden of showing that (1) he made a protected disclosure; (2) the agency proposing the adverse action knew of the disclosure; (3) retaliation resulted; and (4) there was a nexus between the retaliation and the adverse action. Sullivan v. Department of the Navy, 720 F.2d 1266, 1275 (Fed.Cir.1983). See also Hagmeyer v. Department of the Treasury, 757 F.2d 1281, 1284 (Fed.Cir.1985). As has been discussed, the case before us embodies all of the elements of a classical whistleblowing situation, and the notice of proposed adverse action itself states that Mr. Fiorillo was being acted against because of his public disclosures. 148 The arbitrator held that Mr. Fiorillo cannot be protected by the whistleblower statute because his primary motive for making his statement was for personal reasons, referring to the definition of whistleblower in the Special Counsel's Office regulation in 5 C.F.R. Sec. 1250.3(c). This regulation does not, however, state the primary motivation test criticized in subpart A. above. The arbitrator, and the government on this appeal, mis-state or mis-interpret this regulation, which follows the statutory language in 5 U.S.C. Sec. 2302(b)(8), and states in relevant part: 149 Where the information disclosed affects only the personnel situation of the complainant, it will normally be treated as an allegation of a prohibited personnel practice or violation of other civil service law, rule or regulation, and the complainant will not be considered to be a whistleblower. 150 The regulation relates to the subject matter of the disclosure, not the reason or motivation for the disclosure; that is, where the subject matter affects only the complainant's situation, it is normally not a matter of whistleblowing. 151 The information disclosed by Mr. Fiorillo exposed many aspects of prison corruption, mismanagement, and abuse, and also referred to those aspects of his personnel situation that related to retaliation. Retaliation for exposing prison corruption is a prohibited personnel practice in violation of 5 U.S.C. Sec. 2302(b)(8). It can not be sustained. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7701(c)(2)(B). D. 152 The decision of the majority will have a chilling effect on any employee who seeks to exercise his or her constitutional right, and moral obligation, to speak out on issues of public concern that relate to the government employer, for according to the court's decision today such speech is not protected if the employee can be shown to have any personal motivation for speaking, contrary to the holdings in Connick and Pickering.