Essay About Federal Whistleblower Protection Act And Dr. Lakatosfrom

The Insider Movie Questions
The Insider Movie Questions
MemorandumTo:        Dr. LakatosFrom:        Matthew CoxDate:        5/21/2014Re:        The Insider Discussion QuestionsDiscussion QuestionsProvide your argument as to whether confidentiality agreements in severance agreements should apply to Whistleblowing?  Apply any of the material covered thus far including any ethical or legal theories. I feel that confidentiality agreements in severance agreements should not apply to Whistleblowing. Under the utilitarian mind set, if someone has knowledge that will benefit or protect the greatest amount of people, then that someone should not receive punishment of any kind, especially punished financially.While it is Hollywood, did the real lawyers (since this is based on a real story) miss something with the “supplemental (expanded) confidentiality agreement”?  While Dr. Jeffrey Wigand signed the original one, did he legally have to sign the second one (not taking into account the threat of withdrawing his severance payments)?  Could this have formed the basis for ignoring the TRO?  (hint: did the expanded confidentiality agreement lack consideration or legality?). Legally, Dr. Wigand did not have to sign the second confidentially agreement. He had already signed the original, and only signed the expanded agreement because he was threatened financially. Do issues of public health trump confidentiality agreements?  What about under the federal Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989?  Does the Act apply to Dr. Wigand?  The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 states, “[A]ny disclosure of information” that a covered employee “reasonably believes” evidences “a violation of any law, rule, or regulation” or evidences “gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety” is protected on the condition that the disclosure is not prohibited by law nor required to be kept secret by Executive Order.” I believe this act does apply to Dr. Wigand because he was exposing secrets that represented a substantial and specific danger to public health.Answer Chapter Problem 7 on pages 67-68. President Obama signed into law the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act in 2012. This new act strengthened the rights of whistleblowers in several different ways. For instance, according to americanbar.org,  “ the WPEA removes judicially-created loopholes that significantly narrowed the scope of protected whistleblowing under the Whistleblower Protection Act, enhances the remedies available to government whistleblowers who have suffered retaliation; strengthens the ability of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel to hold managers accountable for retaliating against whistleblowers; affords whistleblower protections to all Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees; and mandates broader outreach to inform federal employees of their whistleblower right.”Knowing the power of the Tobacco industry and other industries would you be a Whistleblower? Discuss fully. I wish I could say I would be a Whistleblower under any circumstance, but I simply cannot. If I was single without kids, I definitely would, but I am not sure if I could so easily put my family through torments, and constant financial struggles. But at the same time, if my whistleblowing was to save or protect millions, I feel like I definitely would have to speak up.Analyze each scenario in Case Question 4 on page 60.Had Dr. Carmona been fired in the situation described, I believe he would have been successful in his free speech claim. If he could have proven that he was prohibited from helping citizens by giving them pertinent information, I feel he would have won.Unfortunately, I feel like the NASA engineers would have failed had they went to court. This scenario does not seem to pass the Pickering test. I do not believe that the engineers would be considered “citizens speaking on a matter of public concern.”I definitely think that Tice would have been successful in his free speech claim. Mr. Tice’s reason for speaking out was a matter of public concern, and he had every right to bring that information out in the open.Even though I do not agree with Carlos Blackman’s remarks I think he would have succeeded in his free speech claim. I believe he does have the right to say what he said. He was asked a question, and answered honestly as a citizen.Write your views of the movie relative to the course, your life and life in general. I found the movie to quite educational. As opposed to watching a boring documentary on whistleblowing, The Insider, was quite entertaining while also bringing to light the true horrors that can follow a whistleblower. It saddens me to know that people like the “seven dwarfs” can not only exist in this world, but thrive in this world. People that only care about their financial status, and not the millions of people dying from their products. I truly respect what Dr. Wigand did. He was willing to not only lose everything he had, but to die to expose Big Tobacco’s devious actions. Not many others would have endured the hardships he went through. Hopefully, if I am ever put in a similar situation I can show the same bravery that Dr. Wigand showed.