Illegal Activity Where You Work?-- Go to the police FIRST

[TexasLawyer]

From today's ABA journal.

Friday, February 11, 2005 Volume 4, Issue 6

NO PLACE TO BLOW THE WHISTLE
Fired Employee Loses Because Charges of Wrongdoing Were Made In-House

BY DAVID L. HUDSON JR.

A fired employee who complained of what she saw as corporate wrongdoing lost her wrongful discharge suit because her charges were made to co-workers and a supervisor, not law enforcement officials, a Maryland appellate court ruled.
The Maryland Court of Special Appeals, affirming a summary judgment ruling, determined that discharging an employee for making only internal complaints did not violate "a clear mandate of public policy" under state law sufficient to create an exception to the employment at-will doctrine. That doctrine holds that an employer or employee can decide to end the employment relationship at any time for any reason. King v. Marriott International Inc., No. 175 (Jan. 27).

Karen Bauries King, who worked in employee benefits for Marriott International for 10 years, objected several times to transfers or proposed transfers of funds from an employee medical plan to a general corporate account. King complained both before and after the transfer of funds to her supervisor and co-workers. She was terminated in 2002, and the cause given was her alleged inability to get along with staff. King sued her employer for wrongful discharge in state court, alleging she was fired for complaining about the money transfer. In a complex set of maneuvers, the case moved from state to federal courts. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Va., eventually remanded the case back to a Maryland state court for a November 2002 trial.

The trial court granted Marriott summary judgment on the grounds that 1) there was no wrongful discharge because there was no express public policy violated by the employer’s actions, and 2) federal ERISA law pre-empted the state claim.

<snip>

However, Gary Phelan, a Stamford, Conn.-based lawyer and employment law expert, says the court is "very narrowly interpreting public policy." "The worst aspect of the decision is it’s saying that a person can only be protected if they file a complaint externally," Phelan says. "Now to go out and file a criminal charge to save their jobs."

"Absolutely there should be a public policy exception for those who complain internally," he adds. "The underlying public policy is that somebody is redressing or opposing behavior that violates public policy regardless of whether they raised it internally or externally."


©2005 ABA Journal

http://www.abanet.org/journal/ereport/f11whistle.html

[Ripley]

1. Kind of muffles the whistle-blower huh?

That's a big step to go to the police, who may or may not investigate. If they do and take a bribe to drop the case from the unethical company in question, she would still be fired.

I guess workers are supposed to be accessories to crimes they don't even profit from. Lovely Corporate-Personhood and all.

[Ian David]

2. So, what kinds of things are we supposed to go to the police with?

If someone is cheating their customers, cooking the books, cheating on taxes, re-used postage stamps,... or if they've stolen your red Swingline stapler?