February 1, 2023

Volume XIII, Number 32


January 31, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

January 30, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Issue Spotting Is Not Whistleblowing

Laws protecting whistleblowers generally afford anti-retaliation protections when employees “step out of their role” to report discrimination and dangerous or illegal activity, but not to employees when they are performing their issue spotting job duties.  Employers who understand this distinction are well positioned to manage underperforming employees in sensitive issue-spotting roles such as information technology, compliance, internal audit and even in-house counsel without running afoul of anti-retaliation laws.  The Second Circuit Court of Appeal’s recent decision affirming the Southern District of New York’s dismissal of whistleblower retaliation claims in Johnson v. Board of Education Retirement System of City of New York illustrates this distinction.

Plaintiff in the Johnson case worked as Manager of Infrastructure and Technical Services for the Information Technology group for less than a year before his termination.  During his short tenure, plaintiff reported a superiors’ improper use of employer computer resources to the school district’s Special Commissioner for Investigation, resulting in the superior’s demotion.  Plaintiff also reported that a technology vendor was failing to perform under its contract with the employer and may have been using malware to access employer systems.  Approximately four months after those reports, the employer terminated plaintiff’s employment.  Plaintiff filed suit alleging whistleblower retaliation and lost on summary judgment.  How?

Simply put, it was plaintiff’s job to detect and report misuse of employer computer systems and issues with technology vendors.  According to the district court, “the most sensible reading of the text and caselaw is that the crucial inquiry is whether the speaker intended to blow the whistle on wrongdoing or, rather, whether the speech was simply raising issues about matters relating to the complainant’s job.”  Employers who understand this distinction are better equipped to make appropriate personnel decisions.  Because the law in this area varies dramatically based on the applicable statute and jurisdiction, however, employers are strongly advised to consult with counsel before taking adverse action.

©2023 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.National Law Review, Volume XII, Number 340

About this Author

Greg Keating Employment Litigator Epstein Becker Green Law Firm

Greg Keating’s top-notch skills in and out of the courtroom have won him the respect of employers. He is both a trusted advisor on a panoply of employment issues and a much sought-after whistleblower defense attorney. Greg also defends employers in a wide range of other employment disputes. He draws on more than 25 years of experience as a litigator and employment lawyer to help clients successively resolve their workplace issues.

Trusted Advisor

Employers seek Greg’s daily advice on every type of employment issue. He also regularly advises a substantial...

Daniel J. Green, labor, employment, attorney, Epstein Becker, law firm

DANIEL J. GREEN is an Associate in the Labor and Employment practice, in the New York office of Epstein Becker Green.

Mr. Green:

  • Defends clients in EEOC investigations

  • Defends clients against unfair labor practice complaints involving, among other things, ambiguities in collective bargaining agreements

  • Opposes the class certification of plaintiffs in actions alleging misclassification as independent contractors