In fiscal year 2012 a total of 2,787 whistleblower complaints – the largest number to date – were filed with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), according to newly released data published on the agency’s Whistleblower Protection Program webpage. OSHA enforces the whistleblower provisions in 22 statutes, including the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), Affordable Care Act, and the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act.
Most of the whistleblower charges (1,706) were filed under the OSH Act. The next most common claims were filed under the whistleblower provisions of the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) (353 complaints); Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) (334 complaints); and the SOX Act (164 complaints).
The agency made determinations in 2,867 whistleblower complaints during this time. More than half (1,665) of these determinations were complaint dismissals, while another 592 cases were settled. A total of 565 charges were withdrawn in FY 2012. OSHA issued merit determinations in only 45 complaints.
Over the past year OSHA has issued a number of regulations setting forth procedures for handling retaliation complaints under the whistleblower provisions of several statutes, and has created a 15-member Whistleblower Protection Advisory Committee (WPAC) to make recommendations to improve efficiency and effectiveness of the agency’s Whistleblower Protection Program. The first meeting of the WPAC is scheduled for Tuesday, January 29, 2013.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Last week, a plaintiff sued the creator and the operator of the Esteem criminal background database—LexisNexis and First Advantage—alleging that they gave prohibited information to potential employers, which ultimately barred him from getting a job. Tsang v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., No. CV-14-0493 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2014).
It is rare these days for a California appellate court to weigh in on whether an
employer is vicariously liable for accidents involving an employee that occur
during the employee’s commute to and from work.
Given the myriad government regulations applicable to credit unions and the need for strict financial controls, a credit union might perceive that an employee handbook is low on its list of priorities.
Most plan administrators know that the recipe for a group health plan’s COBRA obligation includes three ingredients – a qualifying event that occurs while the individual is covered by the plan that triggers a loss of such coverage.
We were happy yesterday to refer readers to a great treatise by our friend, Ellen Pinkos Cobb, Esq., entitled "Bullying, Violence, Harassment, Discrimination and Stress" which she updated for 2014. As a number of clamoring readers reminded us, we forgot to tell you where to get it.