Workforce Bulletin

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) announced on March 1, 2012 that its Office of the Whistleblower Protection Program (“WPP”) will now report directly to the Department of Labor’s Office of the Assistant Secretary, rather than to its Directorate of Enforcement Programs. The restructuring signals an elevated priority placed on enforcement of the whistleblower protection laws falling under OSHA’s jurisdiction, and suggests that the Agency intends to devote increased efforts and resources to this area in the future.

WPP Had Not Been Sufficiently Meeting Its Mission to Protect and Incentivize Whistleblowers

OSHA’s WPP is responsible for enforcing the various whistleblower protection provisions of twenty-one separate federal statutes. These include such laws as the Occupational Safety and Health Act, Sarbanes-Oxley, and the Affordable Care Act, and they offer protections to employees who bring to light violations of a wide variety of laws, including airline safety, environmental remediation, food safety, public transportation and railroad, maritime and securities laws. While some differences exist between the details of the particular statutes, in general they prohibit an employer from terminating or otherwise discriminating or retaliating against an employee who reports or provides information regarding a suspected violation of the law, either to internal audit personnel or to the government. The statutes vest OSHA with jurisdiction to investigate complaints of retaliation against whistleblowers, and to award appropriate relief which frequently includes reinstatement, attorneys’ fees and costs, compensatory damages, and in some cases even punitive damages.

A pair of Government Accountability Office audits in 2009 and 2010 had identified substantial problems with the WPP. In particular, an August 2010 GAO Report No. 10-722, titled “Whistleblower Protection: Sustained Management Attention Needed to Address Long-Standing Program Weaknesses,” found that “OSHA has done little to ensure that investigators have the necessary training and equipment to do their jobs, and that it lacks sufficient internal controls to ensure that the whistleblower program operates as intended.”

By Alexis M. Downs and Eric J. Conn

Companies that operate multiple facilities in different locations, such as national retail stores, grocery chains, manufacturers, and hotel chains, need to be aware of three new OSHA enforcement trends with enterprise-wide consequences:

• A rise in follow-up inspections and Repeat violations at sister facilities within a corporate family;
• OSHA’s increasing pursuit of company-wide abatement provisions in settlement agreements; and
• OSHA’s recent requests for enterprise-wide relief from the Occupational Safety and Health Review ...

By Casey M. Cosentino and Eric J. Conn

“Texting while driving” is an epidemic in America, which has prompted forty-two states and the District of Columbia to ban (completely or partially) this conduct for drivers.  Here’s a map of the U.S. states that have enacted some ban on texting while driving.  Studies suggest that texting while driving distracts drivers’ cognitive focus and removes their eyes from the road and hands from the wheel.  It is not surprising, therefore, that distracted driving is attributed with sixteen percent (16%) of all traffic fatalities in 2009.

By Casey M. Cosentino and Eric J. Conn

“Texting while driving” is an epidemic in America, which has prompted forty-two states and the District of Columbia to ban (completely or partially) this conduct for drivers.  Here's a map of the U.S. states that have enacted some ban on texting while driving.  Studies suggest that texting while driving distracts drivers’ cognitive focus and removes their eyes from the road and hands from the wheel.  It is not surprising, therefore, that distracted driving is attributed with sixteen percent (16%) of all traffic fatalities in 2009.

The ...

By:  Casey Cosentino

A hotel management company was recently hit with a putative class action in federal court for allegedly failing to compensate hotel employees overtime pay at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek. As the chief engineer, the lead plaintiff was classified as an executive employee and, thus, was exempt from overtime requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The lead plaintiff asserts, however, that he was misclassified under the Executive exemption because he “regularly and ...

By Paul H. Burmeister and Eric J. Conn

At the end of January 2012, OSHA finally released its Fall 2011 regulatory agenda, which is intended to be an overview of what OSHA plans to accomplish in the next few months.  The agenda includes updates about the status of several major OSHA rulemaking efforts.  Below is a brief summary of the Reg Agenda.

This Reg Agenda was far less ambitious than each of the previous agendas set forth by the Obama Administration’s OSHA, but it does reveal the agency’s top priorities that will continue to be pressed even during an election year.  The highlights ...

By Stuart M. Gerson

Lawson v. Fidelity Management & Research LLC, et al., No. 10-2240 (1st Cir. Feb. 3, 2012) (pdf), discussed in our February 16 posting, comes as a welcome development to privately-held companies that are providers of health care goods and services because it should, if followed generally, preclude whistleblowers from bringing the kinds of audit-related and financial accounting claims that are within the compass of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX).

Many of these companies are, however, the recipients of payments that directly or indirectly involve funds ...

On February 2, 2012, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued final regulations under Section 408(b)(2) of ERISA.  As a result, there is a new due date of July 1, 2012 by which certain service providers must make compensation disclosures to responsible plan fiduciaries of defined benefit and defined contribution plans (such as pension and 401(k) plans).  This provides an extension of the April 1, 2012 due date issued under prior guidance.  The regulations set forth the types of information that must be disclosed so that the plan fiduciaries can assess the reasonableness of the ...

By: Christina Fletcher

Confronting an issue of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently held that the “whistleblower” protections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) cover only employees of public companies, and do not extend to the employees of a public company’s contractors or subcontractors which are themselves private companies. Lawson v. Fidelity Management & Research LLC, et al., No. 10-2240 (1st Cir. Feb. 3, 2012) (pdf). This holding provides private-company employers with a potentially strong defense to claims of retaliation against employees. However, it should be anticipated that Congress may revisit the scope of the protections and ultimately expand them in response to Lawson.

Section 806 of SOX prohibits discrimination against employees who engage in protected whistleblowing activities and work for publicly traded companies subject to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a).  In Lawson, Fidelity Investments, a public company covered by Section 806 of SOX, contracted with a private investment advisory firm to provide investment advisory services. Plaintiff Zang alleged that he had been terminated in retaliation for raising concerns about inaccuracies in a draft revised registration statement for certain Fidelity funds. Plaintiff Lawson alleged retaliation for raising concerns relating to cost accounting methodologies. She resigned her employment in September 2007, claiming constructive discharge. Defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaints argued that the plaintiffs were not covered employees under Section 806 of SOX. The district court agreed with the plaintiffs, holding that subcontractors to a public company subject to SOX were protected by SOX’s whistleblower provision.

The First Circuit reversed, basing its decision on the language of SOX, principles of statutory interpretation, and SOX’s legislative history. The Court noted that plaintiffs’ suggested reading of the Act created anomalies and provided very broad coverage not intended by Congress. The Court explained that the clause “officer, employee, contractor, subcontractor, or agent of such company” in the whistleblower protection provision goes to who is prohibited from retaliating or discriminating, not to who is a covered employee. Thus, covered employees are limited to employees of public companies

by Jeffrey M. Landes, Susan Gross Sholinsky, Steven M. Swirsky, and Jennifer A. Goldman

On January 25, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") sent warning letters to three companies that market, in total, six mobile phone applications ("Apps") that provide users with background check reports. In the warning letters, the FTC states that the Apps may violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"). According to a press release issued by the FTC on February 7, 2012, the FTC cautioned the Apps' marketers that, if they have reason to believe that the background reports provided will be ...