case study of whistle blowing

• Mission & History
• Transparency
• 2023 Annual Report
• Join Our Email List
• Major Campaigns of 2024
• Attorney Referral Program
• Find An Attorney
• Who is a Whistleblower?
• What to Know
• Protections and Rewards
• Stop Retaliation
• Climate Center
• Revitalize the IRS Whistleblower Program
• Enact AML Whistleblower Rules
• Save the CFTC Whistleblower Program
• Protect the False Claims Act
• Reform the SEC Whistleblower Program
• Fight Climate Corruption in Banking and Securities
• Strengthen U.S. Whistleblower Laws
• Women’s History Month
• Whistleblower Network News
• Rules for Whistleblowers
• Press Releases
• Contact Form

Case Studies

The National Whistleblower Center has taken a look at several high profile cases in industries with a high risk of fraud in order to highlight the type of fraudulent activities that can occur.

The first climate-change related securities class action against a major oil and gas company, Ramirez v. ExxonMobil Corporation, highlights how whistleblowers can identify potential securities fraud related to climate risks and oil and gas reserves.

The Shell reserves scandal shows that even the world’s oldest and largest oil and gas companies are not immune to the temptation to overstate their reserves.

Using the qui tam provision of the False Claims Act, a group of whistleblowers revealed a nationwide conspiracy by more than a dozen oil and gas companies to systematically defraud the government by underpaying leasing royalties.

Making false statements to obtain a permit, lease, or loan like BP did for the Deepwater Horizon rig falls under a powerful whistleblower provision, known as the reverse False Claims Act.

Chevron’s Gorgon gas project in Australia was supposed to generate enough tax revenue to facilitate personal tax cuts for every Australian. Instead, most of the profits were siphoned off into offshore tax havens.

An investigation into widespread corruption in the oil and gas industry revealed a scheme by six oil and gas companies to use a third party to pay and conceal bribes to foreign officials.

The U.S. government’s first prosecution for mineral-rights leases concerned the collaboration on bids between competing oil and gas companies in Western Colorado.

Oil & gas prices impact nearly every level of our economy, from financial investors to companies producing petroleum products to consumers paying for gas. Fixing prices in commodities markets as was allegedly done in one recent case can harm traders, investors and consumers.

Whistleblowers have successfully used reverse False Claims suits to stop industrial gas companies from dodging customs duties in cases such as Jackson vs. Linde.

A landmark investigation into Occidental Petroleum’s environmental disclosures revealed that major incidents of environmental damage can also help regulators identify equally significant financial fraud in liability disclosures.

Rio Tinto’s Mozambique coal scandal shows how executives under pressure could be tempted to commit fraud – and how internal whistleblowers can reveal the truth.

An investigation into the nation’s largest coal company revealed that it had knowingly not disclosed the full financial risks associated with new environmental regulations to shareholders over a period of several years.

A historic case against Kerr-McGee highlights the potential for a company to understate liabilities to spin them off and how such a scheme can lead to a multibillion-dollar liability.

Lenders have accused Murray Energy of fraudulent transfer and breach of fiduciary duty, as well as manipulating financial information to avoid violating a bankruptcy financing agreement.

From 2001 to 2011, several Minnesota businessmen solicited major investments in a clean coal machine that they knew didn’t work, committing securities fraud in the process.

FirstEnergy is an IOU headquartered in Akron, Ohio that operates several electricity generation and distribution subsidiaries throughout the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic. It has recently been linked to a major bribery & racketeering scandal and is currently under investigation for securities fraud.

In 2016, SandRidge Energy Inc. became the first company to be charged by the SEC for retaliating against an internal whistleblower and one of the first companies to be charged for using illegal severance agreements to block whistleblowers from reporting to the SEC.

A securities class action lawsuit alleged that timber company Rayonier violated federal securities laws by concealing systemic over-harvesting in Washington state.

In a landmark case, U.S.-based Lumber Liquidators was fined $13 million under the Lacey Act for illegally importing hardwood flooring from the Russian Far East.

A recent NGO report alleges that protected timber illegally harvested by Chinese company dodged U.S. conservation laws via numerous middlemen.

A recent case concerning disappearing containers of rare wood from Gabon demonstrates the role that whistleblowers can play in combatting fraud in the timber industry.

Advocates for Justice

Taxpayer money is everywhere. And where there is money, there are people willing to cheat to get more than their fair share. Fortunately, there are also upstanding humans interested in calling out wrongdoers gaming the system and stealing tax dollars. Also fortunately, we have whistleblower rewards!

The primary law used to assist those blowing the whistle on bad behavior is the federal False Claims Act. The SEC also has a whistleblower program that has grown significantly over the past decade. The last year has brought a record number of whistleblower claims under the FCA and SEC programs. In 2020, the SEC received almost 7,000 whistleblower tips—a 31% increase from just two years prior, and a more than two-fold increase since the program’s inception. Stemming from whistleblower lawsuits, the SEC has awarded almost $700 million to over 100 individuals since issuing its first award in 2012. 

How to be a whistleblower? Whistleblowers may be eligible for an award when they voluntarily provide original, timely, and credible information that leads to a successful enforcement action. Awards in a whistleblower case can range from 10 to 30 percent of the money collected when the sanctions exceed $1 million.

Whistleblower lawsuits vary. In every industry, the U.S. government pays private companies for goods or services. In healthcare, Medicare and Medicaid constitute half of payments to providers of medical services and goods. In the defense industry, hundreds of billions of government dollars are paid to private contractors. Beyond those fields, billions of government dollars go to everything from toilet paper and hand soap, to computers, extension cords and software, and everything in between. The government also supports many industries through subsidies, loans, and guarantees.

Below are details regarding the top awards under the FCA and SEC whistleblower programs over the past year. 

• Settlement Date: July 1, 2020
• Defendant: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation 
• Allegation: Between 2002 and 2011, violating the Anti-Kickback Statute and False Claims Act by providing doctors with cash payments, luxury travel and meals to induce them to prescribe Novartis cardiovascular and diabetes drugs reimbursed by federal healthcare programs. 
• Total Settlement: $642 million 
• Whistleblower Award: TBD 
• Want more info about this case? https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/novartis-pays-over-642-million-settle-allegations-improper-payments-patients-and-physicians

• Settlement Date: October 22, 2020
• Defendant: Undisclosed
• Allegation: Information and assistance led to the SEC’s successful enforcement action and successful related actions by other agencies.
• Total Settlement: Undisclosed 
• Whistleblower Award: $114 million. 
• Want more info about this case? https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielcassady/2020/10/22/whistleblower-awarded-over-114-million-by-sec/?sh=61155e343979

• Settlement Date: June 4, 2020
• Allegation: Detailed, firsthand observations of misconduct by a company that resulted in a successful enforcement action and the return of significant funds to investors.
• Total Settlement: Undisclosed
• Whistleblower Award: $50 million (at the time, the largest amount ever awarded to one individual under the SEC’s whistleblower program)
• Want more info about this case? https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-126

• Settlement Date: July 10, 2020
• Defendants: Universal Health Services, Inc. and UHS of Delaware, Inc. (collectively, UHS), and a Georgia-based UHS facility, Turning Point Care Center, LLC
• Allegation: Billing federal healthcare programs for medically unnecessary inpatient behavioral health services, failing to provide adequate or appropriate services, and paying illegal inducements to program beneficiaries.
• Total Settlement: $122 million 
• Whistleblower Award: $15.8 million.
• Want more info about this case? https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/pr/universal-health-services-inc-and-related-entities-pay-122-million-settle-false-claims

• Settlement Date: April 30, 2020
• Defendants: e-biofuels, LLP, et al.
• Allegation: Making fraudulent transactions in the renewable energy biofuels industry.
• Total Settlement: $69.6 million
• Whistleblower Award: TBD (between 25-30% of what the government collects)
• Want more info about this case? https://whistleblowersblog.org/2020/05/articles/featured-story/court-issues-69-6-million-judgement-in-qui-tam-false-claims-act-whistleblower-case/

• Settlement Date: September 22, 2020
• Defendants: Contractors Bechtel National Inc., Bechtel Corporation, AECOM Energy & Construction, Inc., and Waste Treatment Completion Company, LLC
• Allegation: Overbilling the Department of Energy for work on the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant on craft labor performed by electricians, millwrights, pipefitters, and other skilled trades workers, including billing for unallowable and unreasonable idle time caused by management failures in scheduling work.
• Total Settlement: $57.75 million
• Whistleblower Award: $13.75 million 
• Want more info about this case? https://www.justice.gov/usao-edwa/pr/bechtel-aecom-us-department-energy-doe-contractors-agree-pay-5775-million-resolve-0

• Settlement Date: September 9, 2020
• Defendant: Wheeling Hospital, Inc.
• Allegation: Providing referring physicians with compensation above fair market value, based on the volume or value of their referrals, then submitting to Medicare claims resulting from those improper referrals.
• Total Settlement: $50 million
• Whistleblower Award: $10 million
• Want more info about this case? https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/west-virginia-hospital-agrees-pay-50-million-settle-allegations-concerning-improper

• Settlement Date: December 18, 2020
• Defendants: Texas Heart Hospital of the Southwest LLP and its affiliate THHBP Management Company LLC 
• Allegation: Requiring the physician-owners doctors of the hospital to have 48 patient-contacts a year in order to maintain their ownership interests.
• Total Settlement: $48 million
• Whistleblower Award: $13.92 million
• Want more info about this case? https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/texas-heart-hospital-and-wholly-owned-subsidiary-thhbp-management-company-llc-pay-48-million  

• Settlement Date: April 27, 2020
• Defendant: Genova Diagnostics Inc.
• Allegation: Billing government healthcare programs for medically unnecessary lab tests, and paying unlawful compensation to phlebotomy vendors.
• Total Settlement: $43 million
• Whistleblower Award: $6 million
• Want more info about this case? https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/testing-laboratory-agrees-pay-43-million-resolve-allegations-medically-unnecessary-tests  

• Settlement Date: April 15, 2020
• Defendants: A Florida-based reference laboratory, pain clinic, and two former executives
• Allegation: Automatically ordering urine drug tests for all patients at every visit regardless of need.
• Total Settlement: $41 million 
• Whistleblower Award: $7.79 million  
• Want more info about this case? https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/reference-laboratory-pain-clinic-and-two-individuals-agree-pay-41-million-resolve-allegations

• Settlement Date: January 15, 2020
• Defendant: ResMed Corp.
• Allegation: Improperly providing or helping provide free or below cost call center services, patient outreach services, medical equipment and installation, and interest-free loans to suppliers, sleep labs, and other health providers, in exchange for business.
• Total Settlement: $37.5 million 
• Whistleblower Award: $6.2 million
• Want more info about this case? https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/resmed-corp-pay-united-states-375-million-allegedly-causing-false-claims-related-sale  

• Settlement Date: January 20, 2020
• Defendant: Boston Heart Diagnostics
• Allegation: Entering into multiple quid pro quo arrangements with doctors that order its tests, recruiting doctors to have them promise that their patients would never have to pay a deductible or co-payment, and offering free dietician counseling services in exchange for the doctors’ ordering (via Medicare) an expensive panel of laboratory tests.
• Total Settlement: $28 million
• Whistleblower Award: $4.3 million
• Want more info about this case? https://www.cpmlegal.com/news-28-Million-Settlement-in-Major-Whistleblower-Suit-Against-Boston-Heart-Diagnostics

Need a whistleblower attorney? Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy is one of the nation’s most successful and well-respected whistleblower law firms, representing individuals retaliated against by employers for raising concerns, and individuals reporting corporate fraud resulting in the waste of taxpayer money. For general information about CPM’s Whistleblower practice, see this link: https://www.cpmlegal.com/practices-Whistleblower-Qui-Tam-False-Claims-California  

Want to learn more? To learn more about the terminology of whistleblower law, including definitions of terms like whistleblower, “qui tam,” “relator” (very different from “realtor”), and the specifics of the timing and scope of governmental investigations, check out this link: https://www.cpmlegal.com/practices-Whistleblower-Qui-Tam-False-Claims-California#FAQs

Sarvenaz (Nazy) Fahimi  is a partner practicing in several areas of litigation, with a focus on high profile cases of fraud, cases involving qui tam  Relators in False Claims Act cases in federal and state courts, and cases ...

• Follow us on LinkedIn
• Follow us on Twitter
• Follow us on Facebook
• False Claims/Whistleblower
• Consumer Protection
• Elder Abuse
• Employment Law
• Personal Injury
• Securities / Financial Fraud
• Class Actions
• Environmental Litigation
• Public Interest
• California Law
• Intellectual Property
• San Francisco Bay Area 650.697.6000
• Los Angeles/Santa Monica 310.392.2008
• New York 212.381.6373
• Seattle 206.802.1272

By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use .

The truth will not reveal itself.

from The Center for Investigative Reporting

The Whistleblowers: Selected Case Studies

Share this:

• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

The whistleblowers below are not all protected by the current Whistleblower Protection Act, which does not cover federal employees who work at certain national security agencies, in certain scientific or research capacities, nor does it extend to private contractors. The whistleblower legislation circulating in the House and Senate aims to protect many of the whistleblowers exempted from current law.

Department of the Interior

National Security

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.

Republish this article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

Republish Our Content

Thanks for your interest in republishing a story from Reveal. As a nonprofit newsroom, we want to share our work with as many people as possible. You are free to embed our audio and video content and republish any written story for free under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 license and will indemnify our content as long as you strictly follow these guidelines:

Do not change the story. Do not edit our material, except only to reflect changes in time and location. (For example, “yesterday” can be changed to “last week,” and “Portland, Ore.” to “Portland” or “here.”)

Please credit us early in the coverage. Our reporter(s) must be bylined. We prefer the following format: By Will Evans, Reveal.

If republishing our stories, please also include this language at the end of the story: “This story was produced by Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting, a nonprofit news organization. Learn more at revealnews.org and subscribe to the Reveal podcast, produced with PRX, at revealnews.org/podcast.”

Include all links from the story, and please link to us at https://www.revealnews.org.

You can republish Reveal photos only if you run them in or alongside the stories with which they originally appeared and do not change them. 

If you want to run a photo apart from that story, please request specific permission to license by contacting [email protected]. Reveal often uses photos we purchase from Getty and The Associated Press; those are not available for republication.

If you want to republish Reveal graphics or data, please contact deputy editor Kate Howard at [email protected].

We do not compensate anyone who republishes our work. You also cannot sell our material separately or syndicate it. 

You can’t republish our material wholesale, or automatically; you need to select stories to be republished individually. To inquire about syndication or licensing opportunities, please contact us at [email protected].

If you plan to republish our content, you must notify us by emailing [email protected].

If we send you a request to remove our content from your website, you must agree to do so immediately.

Please note, we will not provide indemnification if you are located or publishing outside the United States, but you may contact us to obtain a license and indemnification on a case-by-case basis.

If you have any other questions, please contact us at [email protected].

by Reveal Admin, Reveal November 1, 2007

This <a target="_blank" href="https://revealnews.org/article/the-whistleblowers-selected-case-studies">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://revealnews.org">Reveal</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://i0.wp.com/revealnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/cropped-Reveal-Icon.png?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;"><img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="https://revealnews.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=15701" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

Offices in:

• San Francisco

Our Successful Whistleblower Cases: Lawsuits & Whistleblower Examples

The biggest whistleblower case settlements ever – glaxosmithkline ($3 billion) and pfizer ($2.3 billion) – were largely a result of qui tam cases brought by phillips & cohen..

Whistleblower cases under the False Claims Act, known as “qui tam” cases , are lawsuits against companies that make specific claims of fraud and misconduct by those companies that have caused the government to lose money. The whistleblower is usually a current or former employee, but anyone who knows about the fraud or misconduct can be a whistleblower.

[See the list of our biggest whistleblower cases.]

Our record of success — more than $13 billion recovered due to our whistleblower cases — is unmatched by any other law firm. We have won for our clients more than $1.1 billion in whistleblower rewards.

We also have won 22 Dodd-Frank whistleblower awards under the SEC and CFTC programs for our clients — the most of any law firm. That includes two of the largest SEC rewards to international whistleblowers: a $37 million award in 2022 and an award for more than $32 million in a case involving massive securities fraud.

Phillips & Cohen has the experience, knowledge and resources that make a difference in the outcome of our clients’ whistleblower cases.

Phillips & Cohen’s record-setting whistleblower cases (examples):

• The largest healthcare fraud settlement ($3 billion – GlaxoSmithKline).
• The second largest healthcare fraud settlement ($2.3 billion – Pfizer Inc.).
• The largest civil settlement of a healthcare fraud case involving solely kickback allegations ( $400 million – DaVita Healthcare Partners ).
• The largest amount ever paid by a defense contractor in a qui tam case ($325 million – Northrop Grumman).
• Largest settlement ever paid by a medical lab company for a faulty product ($302 million – Quest Diagnostics).
• The first and largest settlement by an electronic health records vendor involving healthcare fraud and kickback charges ( $155 million – eClinicalWorks).
• The largest KBR class action lawsuit settlement related to the Iraq War ($108.75 million – KBR).
• One of the first settlements, if not the first settlement, of a whistleblower case involving cybersecurity issues under the False Claims Act. (Cisco Systems – $8.6 million).

How do I file a whistleblower case?

No matter what type of wrongdoing you want to report or what type of whistleblower case you are considering, the best advice is to consult with an experienced whistleblower attorney before taking any action. This will ensure that you are protected in many ways and carefully weigh the risks and rewards for your particular case before you decide what steps to take next.

The False Claims Act requires that whistleblowers use lawyers to file qui tam lawsuits. Certain procedures must be followed so that the case is filed “under seal” and its existence isn’t disclosed to anyone except the government.

Whistleblowers are allowed to file claims with the SEC and the CFTC whistleblower programs without an attorney. However, the SEC and CFTC are more likely to investigate a whistleblower’s claim when a whistleblower works with an experienced and skilled whistleblower lawyer to build a strong case before submitting a whistleblower claim.

If whistleblowers wish to file claims anonymously with the SEC and CFTC, then they must be represented by an attorney under the rules of those whistleblower programs.

If you would like to discuss your possible whistleblower case with Phillips & Cohen, please contact us for a free and confidential review of your case.

For more information, see:

Do I have a whistleblower claim?

Qui tam lawsuits – whistleblower guide & FAQs

Dodd-Frank whistleblower programs

Choosing a whistleblower lawyer

Below is more information about our biggest whistleblower cases, including qui tam cases against pharma companies, hospitals, investment banks, tech companies and defense contractors.

Note: We don’t list details about our successful SEC and CFTC whistleblower cases to protect the identities of our clients who filed confidential claims with the SEC.

Phillips & Cohen’s biggest whistleblower examples and cases

Glaxosmithkline - $3 billion.

Two whistleblowers represented by Phillips & Cohen LLP provided the government with overwhelming evidence that was at the heart of the government’s case against GlaxoSmithKline — whose global headquarters are in London, UK — and the record-setting $3 billion settlement .

Pfizer Inc. - $2.3 billion

The decision by a Pfizer sales representative in Florida, represented by Phillips & Cohen, to file a whistleblower (“qui tam”) whistleblower lawsuit in 2003 kicked off the federal and state investigations that led to Pfizer’s record-breaking $2.3 billion settlement .

TAP Pharmaceuticals - $875 million

TAP Pharmaceuticals Inc. (TAP) paid the United States government $559.5 million and state governments $25.5 million to settle one of the largest civil Medicare and Medicaid fraud cases in history. It also paid a $290 million criminal fine — the largest criminal fine ever paid in a healthcare fraud case.

Amgen - $762 million

A whistleblower represented by Phillips & Cohen revealed that Amgen, a biotechnology giant, had misbranded and provided incomplete information on certain cancer drugs. As a result of this and related lawsuits, Amgen was forced to pay one of the largest fraud settlements for a biotech company in US history: $762.2 million.

HCA Inc. - $631 million

HCA Inc., the nation’s largest for-profit healthcare provider, paid a total of $631 million to the federal government to settle Medicare fraud charges made by two whistleblowers represented by Phillips & Cohen who alleged that the company had inflated expenses for reimbursement claimed in annual Medicare “cost reports.”

Cephalon Inc. - $425 million

Phillips & Cohen represented a sales representative from Ohio in a whistleblower lawsuit against Cephalon Inc. which alleged illegal marketing practices, culminating in a $425 million settlement and a guilty plea. This case was featured on the CBS show, “Whistleblower,” which tells the story of our client and his opioid lollipop Actiq lawsuit .

DaVita Healthcare Partners - $400 million

A whistleblower lawsuit brought by Phillips & Cohen LLP prompted a federal investigation into the business practices of DaVita Healthcare Partners and resulted in DaVita paying $400 million to settle civil charges involving kickbacks to doctors.

Northrop Grumman - $325 million

TRW Inc.’s efforts to stop a scientist from revealing his research findings about faulty electronic components the company sold to the government for military and intelligence-gathering satellites were the basis for a whistleblower lawsuit brought by Phillips & Cohen. Northrop Grumman Corp., which acquired TRW, settled for $325 million.

Quest Diagnostics - $302 million

The impetus for the massive federal investigation that led to a  $302 million settlement by Quest Diagnostics Inc. was a “qui tam” (whistleblower) lawsuit by a California businessman and biochemist, represented by Phillips & Cohen.

Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, et al. - $200+ million

A whistleblower lawsuit brought by Phillips & Cohen exposed the practice of “yield-burning” in the municipal bond market. Dozens of investment banks paid more than $200 million to the federal government to settle the charges, including 17 investment banks that paid about $140 million .

Los Angeles DWP - $160 million

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power paid Los Angeles County, the Los Angeles Unified School District, the Los Angeles Community College District and certain state agencies a total of $160 million to settle a major rate case  brought by Phillips & Cohen LLP.

eClinicalWorks - $155 million

In a ground-breaking case, eClinicalWorks paid $155 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit brought by Phillips & Cohen and related government charges. The case marked the first time an electronic health records vendor has been held accountable for failing to meet federal “Meaningful Use” rules and for violating the federal Anti-Kickback Statute.

Mario Gabelli and his affiliates - $130 million

Money manager Mario Gabelli and his affiliated companies paid $130 million to the federal government to settle a whistleblower lawsuit, brought by Phillips & Cohen, that alleged he was at the center of an effort to deceive the Federal Communications Commission in auctions of cellphone licenses.

Adventist Health System - $118.7 million

Three former employees of a North Carolina hospital exposed an alleged scheme by Adventist Health System to pay doctors excessive compensation to lock in their patient referrals to Adventist-owned hospitals, clinics and other outpatient services. The whistleblowers were represented by Phillips & Cohen LLP.

Teledyne Inc. - $115 million

Teledyne Inc. paid $115 million to the federal government to settle a “qui tam” (whistleblower) case, brought by Phillips & Cohen, for alleged false certification and overbilling practices.

HDL/BlueWave Executives - $114 million

Former executives of Health Diagnostic Laboratory and its marketing company were ordered to pay $114 million for a fraud scheme that paid kickbacks to doctors who ordered expensive, unnecessary tests.

Northrop Grumman - $111 million

Northrop Grumman paid $111.2 million to the federal government to settle a whistleblower lawsuit alleging that TRW Inc., which it had recently acquired, padded bills submitted to the government under space and technology contracts.

National Health Laboratories - $110 million

National Health Laboratories paid the government $110 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit, brought by our attorneys, that alleged NHL performed unnecessary blood tests.

KBR - $108.75 million

In a case brought by Phillips & Cohen, two whistleblowers announced that  litigation with KBR Services settled for $108.75 million , the largest cash settlement ever obtained in connection with Iraq War fraud.

More than 130 hospitals - $105 million

More than 130 hospitals have now reached settlements with the Justice Department totaling $105 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit brought by Phillips & Cohen that alleged that the hospitals overcharged Medicare for a type of back surgery known as kyphoplasty. This includes a recent settlement by 32 hospitals in 15 states that paid more than $28 million to settle Medicare fraud charges.

CenCal Health, Other Provoders - $95.5 million

Under seven separate settlement agreements, CenCal Health , a California county organized health system (COHS), along with seven hospitals and clinics doing business with CenCal Health, agreed to pay a total of $95.5 million to the federal government and the state of California to settle a whistleblower lawsuit brought by Phillips & Cohen.

Boehringer Ingelheim - $95 million

Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc. paid $95 million to the government to settle a qui tam lawsuit brought by a sales representative-turned-whistleblower, represented by Phillips & Cohen. The medical whistleblower case alleged Boehringer defrauded Medicare and other government healthcare programs and promoted uses of its drugs that endangered patients’ health.

Verizon - $93.5 million

A whistleblower lawsuit filed by Phillips & Cohen against Verizon resulted in the company paying the federal government $93.5 million to settle allegations that Verizon overcharged the government for voice and data communication services .

Quorum Health Group - $85.7 million

A U.S. district judge in Florida awarded a whistleblower, represented by Phillips & Cohen 24 percent of an $85.7 million Medicare fraud settlement , noting that “only his dogged resolution, supported by competent professionals,” achieved the settlement.

Defense contractor - $82 million

A defense contractor paid $82 million to settle a “qui tam” (whistleblower) lawsuit, brought by Phillips & Cohen, involving improper cost allocation.

Ortho-McNeil Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Ortho Mc-Neil Pharmaceutical LLC - $81 million

One of the two whistleblower lawsuits that settled as part of Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s and Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical LLC’s $81 million settlement was filed by Dr. Gary R. Spivack, a psychiatrist from northern Virginia, who was represented by Phillips & Cohen LLP.

Community Health Systems hospitals - $75 million

A subsidiary of Community Health Systems Inc. and three of its New Mexico hospitals paid $75 million to the federal government to settle a whistleblower lawsuit brought by Phillips & Cohen.

Medtronic Spine LLC - $75 million

Medtronic Spine LLC, formerly known as Kyphon Inc., paid $75 million to the federal government to settle a whistleblower lawsuit brought by Phillips & Cohen. The qui tam case exposed the spinal medical device company’s sales and pricing strategy to increase its profits by defrauding Medicare.

Louis Berger Group - $69.3 million

A whistleblower lawsuit, brought by Phillips & Cohen, was the basis for the federal government’s fraud case against the Louis Berger Group that settled for $69.3 million — the largest recovery in a case involving war-zone contractors in Afghanistan and Iraq .

Office Depot - $68.5 million

More than 1,000 cities, counties, school districts and other government entities in California – including Los Angeles and Santa Clara County – shared a $68.5 million settlement paid by Office Depot for allegedly overcharging them for office supplies. The alleged billing fraud was exposed by a Phillips & Cohen whistleblower client.

Toshiba Corp. - $63 million

Toshiba Corp. paid $63 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit, brought by Phillips & Cohen, that alleged Toshiba was selling defective laptop computers.

Novo Nordisk - $60 million

Novo Nordisk paid $58.65 million to resolve several whistleblower lawsuits, including one brought by Phillips & Cohen , alleging illegal marketing, promotion and sale of its best-selling diabetes drug, Victoza. Phillips & Cohen also used little-known California and Illinois state insurance whistleblower laws to recover additional funds, bringing the total settlement amount to $60 million.

General Electric - $59.5 million

General Electric paid $59.5 million to settle a “qui tam” (whistleblower) lawsuit, brought by Phillips & Cohen, that alleged the company diverted foreign military aid.

7 hospitals (Texas, Calif., Fla., Nev.) - $55 million

$55 million was returned to the U.S. Treasury as a result of a “qui tam” (whistleblower) lawsuit brought by Phillips & Cohen that alleged the hospitals submitted false “cost reports” to Medicare.

CareCore National - $54 million

A whistleblower represented by Phillips & Cohen revealed that CareCore National had billed Medicare and Medicaid for diagnostic tests that were not medically necessary. As a result, the company was forced to pay $54 million

Wheeling Hospital - $50 million

Wheeling Hospital paid $50 million to settle a Phillips & Cohen whistleblower lawsuit alleging the West Virginia hospital violated the Stark Law and Anti-kickback Statute as part of a scheme to boost its revenues and gain “monopolistic power” in the region. The sum is noteworthy for the amount paid by a single hospital in a Stark case.

Singer Co. - $50 million

Singer Co. paid the government $50 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit brought by Phillips & Cohen that alleged the company submitted false cost and data reporting in its government contracts.

C.R. Bard Inc. - $48.2 million

C.R. Bard Inc., a multinational medical device company, paid the federal government $48.2 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit brought by Phillips & Cohen that alleged Bard’s urological division and wholly owned subsidiary, ProSeed Inc., paid doctors and hospitals kickbacks to entice them to order Bard’s products at inflated prices to treat Medicare patients with prostate cancer.

Ensign Group - $48 million

A whistleblower lawsuit brought by Phillips & Cohen LLP was the primary basis for a $48 million settlement the federal government made with the Ensign Group involving Medicare billing fraud .

Health Diagnostic Laboratory Inc. - $48.5 million

A South Carolina doctor who had ethical concerns about blood testing labs paying physicians extra fees allegedly to get their business was one of the leading whistleblowers in a case, brought by Phillips & Cohen, against two cardiovascular labs. HDL paid the government $48.5 million to settle.

Alpharma Inc. - $42.5 million

Alpharma Inc. paid $42.5 million to the federal government and certain states to settle a whistleblower lawsuit that exposed an alleged kickback scheme to boost its sales of Kadian , a prescription painkiller.

Modernizing Medicine - $45.6 million

A whistleblower represented by Phillips & Cohen revealed that Modernizing Medicine, an electronic health-records company, had engaged in multiple kickback schemes with medical labs. As a result, the company was forced to pay $45.6 million .

Kmart Corp. - $42 million

Kmart agreed to pay $42 million to the federal government and several states to settle allegations the company  overcharged government healthcare programs and private insurers for generic prescription drugs.

MetPath and MetWest - $39.8 million

MetPath and MetWest paid $39.8 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit, brought by Phillips & Cohen, that alleged the healthcare companies fraudulently billed Medicare for unnecessary blood tests.

Prime Healthcare - $37.5 million

Prime Healthcare, its CEO and a cardiologist paid $37.5 million to settle a Phillips & Cohen whistleblower lawsuit alleging that the for-profit hospital chain – one of the largest in the nation – paid kickbacks and violated the Stark Law. The case appears to be the largest settlement by a hospital so far in a case involving alleged kickbacks paid to a single physician.

Alliant Techsystems (ATK) - $37 million

The False Claims Act case against a wholly owned subsidiary of Alliant Techsystems (ATK) settled for about $37 million. The whistleblower cases included allegations that ATK sold the U.S. Air Force military flares with dangerous defects .

3 physician practice groups (University of Washington) - $35 million

Two physician practice groups affiliated with the University of Washington paid $35 million to the federal government and the state of Washington to settle a whistleblower lawsuit that said the physician groups routinely overbilled Medicare and Medicaid for years .

Home health agency, Calif. - $33.8 million

A Los Angeles woman who owned and operated two home health agencies paid the federal government $33.8 million to settle a whistleblower case alleging Medicare fraud and pleaded guilty to related criminal charges.

Inter-Tel Technologies, et al. - $33 million

A number of technology vendors and consultants, including Inter-Tel Technologies and NEC, paid a total of $33 million to settle allegations — revealed by a whistleblower lawsuit brought by Phillips & Cohen — of fraudulent bid-rigging in E-rate programs. Those programs are intended to help disadvantaged public schools pay for technology purchases.

Freedom Health, Optimum Healthcare, and their affiliates - $32.5 million

A whistleblower lawsuit filed on behalf of a Florida doctor against Freedom Health, Optimum Healthcare and their affiliates – all Medicare Advantage plans – settled for $32.5 million.

Genomic Health Inc. - $32.5 million

Genomic Health Inc. , a clinical diagnostic test supplier, paid $32.5 million to settle two whistleblowers’ lawsuits filed by Phillips & Cohen LLP and Brown LLC.  The lawsuits allege Genomic Health violated the False Claims Act by overbilling the federal government for genomic-based lab tests for cancer patients.

NextGen Healthcare, Inc. - $31 million

NextGen Healthcare, Inc. (NXGN), a provider of electronic health records (EHR) systems, agreed to pay $31 million to the federal government to settle a whistleblower lawsuit filed  by Phillips & Cohen.

Lincare Holdings Inc. - $29 million

Lincare Holdings Inc. , a durable medical equipment company that supplies oxygen to patients with respiratory issues, agreed to pay $29 million to settle a pathbreaking whistleblower lawsuit brought by Phillips & Cohen. This is believed to be the first successful False Claims Act case against a healthcare supplier for overcharging the Medicare Advantage program for its services.

Physician Partners of America - $24.5 million

A whistleblower represented by Phillips & Cohen revealed that Physician Partners of America had engaged in Medicare fraud and kickback schemes. As a result, the company was forced to pay $24.5 million .

Linde GmbH and Linde Engineering North America - $22.8 million

International engineering firm Linde and its subsidiary agreed to a $22.8 million settlement of a whistleblower lawsuit alleging it evaded US customs duties.

Martin’s Point Health Care - $22.48

Martin’s Point Health Care Inc ., a provider of healthcare in Maine and New Hampshire, agreed to pay $22.48 million to resolve allegations that it violated the federal False Claims Act by knowingly submitting inaccurate diagnosis codes for patients enrolled in the Medicare Advantage Plans it offers. The whistleblower’s lawsuit filed by Phillips & Cohen is believed to be the largest settlement in Maine under the False Claims Act.

Formosa Plastics Corp. USA - $22.5 million

Formosa Plastics Corp. USA paid  $22.5 million to settle its liability in a whistleblower lawsuit , brought by Phillips & Cohen, involving PVC pipe manufactured by a former subsidiary, JM Eagle.

James Jones Co., Watts Industries, Tyco International, Mueller Co. - $20.8 million

Four manufacturing companies paid a total of $39 million to dozens of California municipalities and water districts to settle a whistleblower lawsuit brought by Phillips & Cohen LLP and a related civil complaint that alleged the companies provided substandard parts for water supply systems and that some of those parts contained levels of lead that exceeded industry standards.

Orphan (Jazz Pharmaceuticals) - $20 million

A whistleblower lawsuit, brought by Phillips & Cohen, launched the federal investigation into the illegal marketing of the drug Xyrem that resulted in a guilty plea and a $20 million settlement by Orphan Medical Inc., now part of Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Sodexo Inc. - $20 million

A kickback case against Sodexo that settled for $20 million began with the efforts of two whistleblower brothers, who were represented by Phillips & Cohen. They persevered in stopping the alleged fraud even after they were fired by Sodexo.

Omnicare Inc. - $19.8 million

Omnicare Inc., the nation’s largest pharmacy for nursing homes, paid $19.8 million to settle a qui tam case brought by a whistleblower represented by Phillips & Cohen. The $19.8 million was part of a larger $98 million settlement with the federal government and several states.

Chartwells, Compass Group USA, et al - $19.4 million

Chartwells settled a whistleblower lawsuit involving management of school meal programs in Washington, DC, by paying the District a total of $19.4 million. The whistleblower was the former director of food services for DC public schools, who was represented by Phillips & Cohen.

Baker & Taylor and WR Grace - $18.5 million

W.R. Grace & Co. and its former book division, Baker & Taylor Inc., paid  $18.5 million to settle charges that they defrauded libraries , schools and government offices across the country by deliberately overcharging them for millions of books.

SouthEast Eye Specialists - $17 million

SouthEast Eye Specialists, together with SouthEast Eye Surgery Center and the Eye Surgery Center of Chattanooga (SEES), agreed to pay the United States and Tennessee $17 million to resolve allegations that they violated the Anti-Kickback Statute by illegally inducing primary-care eye doctors (optometrists) to refer – or steer –patients to SEES for cataract surgeries by providing optometrists a variety of forms of financial remuneration

Doshi Diagnostic Imaging Services - $15.5 million

A chain of medical radiology facilities paid the federal government and the states of New York and New Jersey a total of $15.5 million to settle three whistleblower lawsuits – including one filed by Phillips & Cohen LLP – that alleged Medicare and Medicaid billing fraud .

Harris Co. Hospital District - $15.5 million

A Houston-area hospital system paid more than $15.5 million to the federal government to settle a whistleblower lawsuit, brought by Phillips & Cohen that exposed the hospital’s practice of billing Medicare and Medicaid for patients whose treatment wasn’t covered by the federal health programs.

Adventist Health - $14.1 million

A qui tam lawsuit brought by Phillips & Cohen  led to Adventist Health paying the federal government and the state of California $14.1 million to settle allegations that an Adventist hospital in Los Angeles illegally paid physician practice groups for patient referrals by inflating other payments the hospital made to the group.

SavaSeniorCare, Mariner Health Care, et al. - $14 million

Two prominent figures in the New York City real estate market, a Long Island associate and two Atlanta-based nursing home chains paid the federal government and certain state Medicaid programs $14 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit brought by Phillips & Cohen LLP alleging Medicare and Medicaid fraud involving a kickback and a cover-up .

Allegheny Teledyne - $13.95 million

Allegheny Teledyne paid $13.95 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit, brought by Phillips & Cohen, alleging billing fraud and improper cost allocation in government contracts.

FMC Corp. - $13 million

FMC Corp. paid the federal government $13 million to settle a whistleblower case brought by Phillips & Cohen. The suit alleged FMC deliberately inflated costs of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle , an armored vehicle used in the Gulf War.

SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories - $13 million

SmithKline Beecham PLC paid $325 million to the federal government to settle three whistleblower lawsuits, including one brought by Phillips & Cohen. The lawsuits alleged the company’s clinical-laboratory unit defrauded the Medicare and Medicaid programs through various schemes, including deliberately overcharging the federal programs for blood tests.

Northrop Grumman - $12.5 million

Northrop Grumman paid $12.5 million to settle fraud charges that were brought to the government’s attention by a company manager, represented by Phillips & Cohen, in its Salt Lake City, Utah, plant.

Xavier University of Louisiana - $12.3 million

Xavier University of Louisiana paid $12.3 million to settle its liability in a whistleblower lawsuit filed by Phillips & Cohen that alleged the school and others submitted fraudulent information to the Federal Emergency Management Agency to obtain disaster relief funds.

Christus Health & Santa Fe hospital - $12.2 million

Christus Health and its Santa Fe hospital will pay $12.2 million to the federal government to settle a whistleblower case brought by Phillips & Cohen LLP that alleged Christus and the hospital manipulated federal funding for an indigent care program to boost their revenues.

Integris Baptist Medical Center and Integris Health Inc. - $12.2 million

Integris Baptist Medical Center paid $12.2 million to the federal government to settle a whistleblower lawsuit that alleged the Oklahoma City hospital substantially overbilled Medicare for the cost of acquiring organs that it transplanted into Medicare patients.

AECOM - $11.8 million

The AECOM settlement of $11.8 million resolved allegations that damage from Hurricane Katrina submitted to FEMA for various buildings were inaccurate or inflated, causing FEMA to make larger payouts that FEMA rules allow.

Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) - $11.75 million

SAIC paid the federal government $11.75 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit, brought by Phillips & Cohen, that alleged SAIC cheated the government out of millions of dollars under a “first responder” training program.

AAR Corp - $11 million

Defense contractor AAR Corp paid $11 million to settle a qui tam lawsuit brought by a former lead aircraft conformity specialist represented by Phillips & Cohen.The whistleblower complaint alleged that AAR failed to properly maintain aircraft used to transport US troops in Afghanistan .

CA Technologies - $11 million

CA Technologies paid $11 million to settle whistleblower allegations that the software giant violated the federal False Claims Act through the fraudulent billing of hundreds of public agencies on software maintenance renewal contracts from 2001 through 2009.

MetPath and Unilab Corp. - $11 million

MetPath Inc. and Unilab Corp. paid $11 million to the federal government and the states of Georgia and California to settle a whistleblower lawsuit, brought by Phillips & Cohen, that alleged they had bilked Medicare and other state and federal health insurance programs by obtaining excessive reimbursements when billing for laboratory tests .

Corning Clinical Laboratories, Unilab Corp. - $11 million

Corning Clinical Laboratories paid $11 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit, brought by Phillips & Cohen, that alleged the healthcare company billed the government for unnecessary blood tests .

Zwanger-Pesiri Inc. - $10.5 million

Zwanger-Pesiri paid $10.5 million for allegedly performing radiology procedures that were not ordered by doctors and were medically unnecessary. Some of those procedures were particularly invasive, such as a transvaginal ultrasound.

Rotech Healthcare - $9.95 million

Rotech Healthcare paid a total of $9.95 million dollars to the federal government and certain states to settle a qui tam lawsuit that alleged the homecare medical equipment company engaged in a fraudulent billing scheme involving oxygen equipment and oxygen supplies provided for homecare use by Medicare and Medicaid patients.

Damon Clinical Laboratories - $9.8 million

Damon Clinical Laboratories Inc. paid $9.8 million in criminal and civil fines to settle a whistleblower lawsuit brought by Phillips & Cohen that was part of a broader settlement for $119 million. The whistleblowers and the government charged that the company had submitted false claims to Medicare and other federal insurance programs for laboratory tests that were not ordered and were not medically necessary.

Tenet Healthcare Corp. - $9.75 million

Tenet Healthcare Corp. paid a total of $55.75 million to the federal government to settle numerous allegations of Medicare fraud, including those in a whistleblower lawsuit brought by Phillips & Cohen LLP involving Brotman Medical Center, a Tenet owned-and-operated facility in the Los Angeles area.

KPMG - $9 million

Accounting giant KPMG LLP paid $9 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit that alleged the firm helped Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. — now HCA — prepare and later conceal false claims in Medicare “cost reports” that defrauded Medicare of millions of dollars .

SEC award - $9 million

The SEC awarded more than $9 million to a whistleblower client represented by  Phillips & Cohen. The client provided critical information to the SEC leading directly to a successful enforcement action against a large financial institution.

Cisco Systems - $8.6 million

Cisco Systems Inc. paid $8.6 million to settle a “qui tam” lawsuit that alleged Cisco knowingly sold video surveillance systems used by federal and state agencies that could have been easily hacked because of critical software flaws. It was likely the first settlement of a whistleblower case involving cybersecurity issues brought under the False Claims Act.

UPMC - $8.5 million

UPMC and James Luketich MD – the longtime chair of UPMC’s Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, agreed to pay the federal government $8.5 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit alleging fraud and risk of patient harm brought by Phillips & Cohen. UPMC is a healthcare system located in Pittsburgh, PA.

NJ and NY pain management clinics and the physician owner - $7.4 million

A group of pain management clinics and surgery centers in New Jersey and New York City and their physician owner, Dr. Amit Poonia, agreed to pay the government $7.4 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit filed by Phillips & Cohen that alleged Medicare billing fraud involving P-Stims and other electro-acupuncture devices.

U.S. Renal Care - $7.3 million

U.S. Renal Care paid $7.3 million to the federal government to settle a whistleblower lawsuit — brought by a nurse represented by Phillips & Cohen — that alleged a company U.S. Renal Care acquired, Dialysis Corporation of America (DCA), overcharged Medicare for an anemia drug used to treat dialysis patients.

Florida radiologist - $7 million

A prominent Boca Raton radiologist and owner of several medical scanning centers in southern Florida paid $7 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit and government charges that he fraudulently billed Medicare for CT scans and other medical imaging tests that were not ordered, not medically necessary and often never even performed.

Hewlett Packard and Agilent Technologies - $7 million

Hewlett Packard Co. and Agilent Technologies Inc. paid a total of $7 million to the federal government to settle charges that they knowingly sold defective medical monitoring devices to federal government agencies and failed to investigate or correct the problems.

Group Health Cooperative (Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Washington) - $6.3 million

Phillips & Cohen filed a qui tam case against a Medicare Advantage organization, Group Health Cooperative (now known as Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Washington), that alleged risk adjustment fraud. It settled for $6.3 million .

Sharp Memorial Hospital - $6.2 million

Sharp Memorial Hospital paid the federal government $6.2 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit, brought by Phillips & Cohen, that alleged it defrauded Medicare by filing fraudulent claims for reimbursement for costs associated with its heart and kidney transplant centers.

Berkeley Heartlab/Quest - $6 million

Berkeley HeartLab (later acquired by Quest Diagnostics) settled a Phillips & Cohen qui tam case for $6 million that alleged it paid doctors kickbacks so they would order expensive, medically unnecessary cardiovascular blood tests.

Providian Financial Corp. and Total System Services - $6 million

Providian Financial Corp., one of the nation’s largest credit card issuers, and Total System Services Inc., a processor of credit card payments, paid the government $6 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit brought by Phillips & Cohen LLP that alleged the companies defrauded the U.S. Postal Service .

CSX Transportation - $6 million

CSX Transportation paid the government $6 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit, brought by Phillips & Cohen, that alleged it overcharged on government contracts.

Omnicare Inc. - $5.3 million

A company that routinely recycled the unused drugs of deceased nursing home patients and sold them over and over again to Medicaid for other nursing home patients paid the government $5.3 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit and civil charges for defrauding Medicaid.

Lockheed Martin - $4.4 million

Lockheed Martin Corp. has agreed to pay the federal government $2.2 million in cash and make certain repairs valued at an additional $2.2 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit brought by Phillips & Cohen LLP that alleged Lockheed sold to the US Coast Guard a defective communications system for the Coast Guard’s National Security Cutters.

Hughes Aircraft - $4 million

Hughes Aircraft Company paid $4.05 million to the U.S. Treasury to settle a whistleblower lawsuit that charged the company had routinely lied about conducting important quality assurance tests of certain components used in missiles, fighter planes and other military systems.

American Systems, Anixter and Corning - $3 million

American Systems Corporation, Anixter International Inc., and Corning Cable Systems LLC paid $3 million to settle allegations in a qui tam lawsuit brought by Phillips & Cohen that they violated the False Claims Act and the Anti-Kickback Act in bidding on a contract with the CIA .

Cypress Pharmaceutical and Hawthorn Pharmaceuticals - $2.8 million

Hawthorn Pharmaceuticals Inc. and its parent company, Cypress Pharmaceutical Inc., paid the federal government $2.8 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit filed by Phillips & Cohen LLP that alleged Hawthorn falsely marketed unapproved prescription drugs as being eligible for reimbursement by Medicaid and other government health care programs.

Labcorp - $2.1 million

Laboratory Corporation of America (Labcorp), a global healthcare company that provides clinical lab services, has agreed to pay $2.1 million to resolve allegations it violated the federal False Claims Act.  The allegations were initially brought in a whistleblower lawsuit filed by Phillips & Cohen for failure to return overpayments to the government.

SEC award - 1.9 million

The SEC awarded $1.9 million to a whistleblower client represented by  Phillips & Cohen.

Singulex Inc. - $1.5 million

A South Carolina doctor, represented by Phillips & Cohen, who had ethical concerns about blood testing labs paying physicians extra fees allegedly to get their business was one of the leading whistleblowers in a case against two cardiovascular labs that the government settled for $48.5 million.

ev3 (Medtronic) - $1.25 million

ev3, a wholly owned subsidiary of medical device company Covidien PLC (now Medtronic Inc.), paid  $1.25 million to the federal government to settle a whistleblower lawsuit brought by Phillips & Cohen LLP.

Gilbane Building Co. - $1.1 million

Gilbane Building Co., a privately held construction company with global operations, paid the government $1.1 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit brought by Phillips & Cohen LLP that claimed a company it had acquired had fraudulently obtained government construction business that was intended for small businesses owned by disabled military veterans.

Rocky Mountain Instrument Co. - $1 million

Rocky Mountain Instrument Co. paid $1 million to the federal government to settle civil charges related to the illegal export of sensitive military information for the manufacture of certain equipment overseas. It was apparently the first time the False Claims Act has been used in connection with violations of International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and the Arms Control Export Act.

KAP7 International - $300,000

KAP7 International, Inc. (KAP7) and Bradley Schumacher, President and co-founder of KAP7, agreed to pay $300,000 to settle a whistleblower lawsuit filed by Phillips & Cohen for avoiding paying US customs duties on swimwear and water polo equipment.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Wiley - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Blowing the whistle during the first wave of COVID ‐19: A case study of Quebec nurses

Marilou gagnon.

1 School of Nursing, University of Victoria, Victoria British Columbia, Canada

Amélie Perron

2 School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, Ottawa Ontario, Canada

Caroline Dufour

Emily marcogliese, pierre pariseau‐legault.

3 Department of Nursing, Université du Québec en Outaouais, Gatineau Canada

David Kenneth Wright

4 Palliative Care and Nursing Ethics, Centre for Research on Health and Nursing, Ottawa Ontario, Canada

Patrick Martin

5 Faculty of Nursing, Université Laval, Québec Canada

Franco A. Carnevale

6 Ingram School of Nursing, McGill University, Montreal Canada

Associated Data

News stories and online forms are publicly available. The interviews are not available for confidentiality reasons.

The experiences of nurses who blew the whistle during the COVID‐19 pandemic have exposed gaps and revealed an urgent need to revisit our understanding of whistleblowing.

The aim was to develop a better understanding of whistleblowing during a pandemic by using the experiences and lessons learned of Quebec nurses who blew the whistle during the first wave of COVID‐19 as a case study. More specifically, to explore why and how nurses blew the whistle, what types of wrongdoing triggered their decision to do so and how context shaped the whistleblowing process as well as its consequences (including perceived consequences).

The study followed a single‐case study design with three embedded units of analysis.

We used content analysis to analyse 83 news stories and 597 forms posted on a whistleblowing online platform. We also conducted 15 semi‐structured interviews with nurses and analysed this data using a thematic analysis approach. Finally, we triangulated the findings.

We identified five themes across the case study. (1) During the first wave of COVID‐19, Quebec nurses experienced a shifting sense of loyalty and relationship to workplace culture. (2) They witnessed exceedingly high numbers of intersecting wrongdoings amplified by mismanagement and long‐standing issues. (3) They reported a lack of trust and transparency; thus, a need for external whistleblowing. (4) They used whistleblowing to reclaim their rights (notably, the right to speak) and build collective solidarity. (5) Finally, they saw whistleblowing as an act of moral courage in the face of a system in crisis. Together, these themes elucidate why and how nurse whistleblowing is different in pandemic times.

Our findings offer a more nuanced understanding of nurse whistleblowing and address important gaps in knowledge. They also highlight the need to rethink external whistleblowing, develop whistleblowing tools and advocate for whistleblowing protection.

In many ways, the COVID‐19 pandemic has challenged our foundational understanding of whistleblowing and, as a result, it has limited the usefulness of existing literature on the topic for reasons that will be brought to light in this paper. We believe that studying the uniqueness of whistleblowing during a pandemic can address this gap by describing why and how health care workers blow the whistle during a pandemic and situating this experience within a broader social, political, organizational context.

1. INTRODUCTION

During the first wave of the COVID‐19 pandemic, defined as March to August 2020, Canada recorded 138,010 cases of COVID‐19 and close to 10,000 deaths (CPHA,  2021 ). The first wave had a devastating impact across the country, but not all jurisdictions were impacted equally (Flood et al.,  2020 ). The province of Quebec, which is the second most populated province in the country and is home to approximately 22% of Canadians (Statistic Canada,  2021 ), was hit particularly hard during the first 5 months of the COVID‐19 pandemic. By the end of May 2020, for example, the province had recorded 45,773 COVID‐19 cases, accounting for 57% of all cases in the country (CPHA,  2021 ). By the end of July 2020, it had recorded close to 60,000 cases (INESSS,  2020 ). Of these cases, 14,191 (24%) were amongst health care workers (INESSS,  2020 ). It also recorded 5820 deaths, primarily in long‐term care (INESSS,  2020 ). Those deaths accounted for 65% of all COVID‐19‐related deaths in the country and were substantially higher than those recorded in other high‐income countries, including the United States (Urrutia et al.,  2021 ). Because COVID‐19 disproportionately affected Quebec during the first wave, the province has been described as a ‘textbook case’ to study the COVID‐19 pandemic and government responses (Alami et al.,  2021 , p. 2). It also offers a real‐world case study of whistleblowing by health care workers during a pandemic and, more specifically, nurses working at the frontline.

2. BACKGROUND

The classic definition of whistleblowing is the one proposed by Near and Miceli ( 1985 ). The authors define whistleblowing as ‘a process involving at least four elements: (1) the whistleblower: a former or current member of an organization who is aware of wrongdoing but generally lacks the authority or power to make the required changes; (2) the whistleblowing act: the act of disclosing an illegal, immoral, illegitimate practice to persons or organizations that may be able to bring about change; (3) the complaint receiver: a third party (external whistleblowing) or someone other than or in addition to the immediate supervisor (internal whistleblowing); (4) the organization: a public or private organization who is the target of the whistleblowing and who will be called upon to respond (or not) to the disclosure of wrongdoing’ (Gagnon & Perron,  2020a , p. 381). Whistleblowing may appear to challenge to the authority structure of an organization, but it is not an act of deviance or a breach of loyalty per se; it is triggered by the seriousness of the wrongdoing and can indeed offer valuable information to improve organizational effectiveness and public safety (Gagnon & Perron,  2020a ).

In the health sciences literature, much of the research focuses on the whistleblower (i.e. motivations, decision‐making processes, consequences of whistleblowing and so forth) and, to a lesser extent, on the context in which whistleblowing occurs and the process of whistleblowing itself (Gagnon & Perron,  2020a ). The literature also takes as its starting point the experience of employees who witness wrongdoings in the workplace and disclose such wrongdoings internally or externally to the organization after careful ethical deliberation and weighing‐in of potential risks and consequences (Gagnon & Perron,  2020a ). Nurses (and, to a lesser extent, nursing students) are the most studied health care workers in the whistleblowing literature (Mannion et al.,  2018 ). We attribute this to the nature of nursing practice in care settings and nurses' extensive presence at the ‘bedside.’ Nurses also constitute the largest group of health care workers in the health care system, which increases their likelihood of witnessing serious risks or patterns of wrongdoings that may trigger a duty to act. Finally, they make up the frontline of the health care system, meaning that, in the event of a pandemic, they bear witness to the policy and management failures, the injustices and the toll these take on patients, families and other workers.

The nursing research on whistleblowing suggests that when nurses blow the whistle, they do so primarily out of concerns for patient care and outcomes (Jackson et al.,  2014 ). Studies conducted to date have identified five types of situations that may result in whistleblowing: (1) unsafe working conditions, (2) deviations from practice standards; (3) unprofessional and harmful behaviours; (4) failure to uphold patients' rights and (5) management and organizational issues (Gagnon & Perron,  2020a ). Nurses who sound the alarm in such situations are typically employees and they work within a particular organizational context that shapes their beliefs and values, decision‐making process, disclosure strategies and overall experience (Ahern & McDonald,  2002 ; Jackson et al.,  2010a , 2010b , 2011 , 2014 ; Mansbach & Bachner,  2010 ; McDonald & Ahern,  2000 , 2002 ; Peters et al.,  2011 ; Pohjanoksa et al.,  2019ab ). With regard to internal and external whistleblowing, recent studies by Pohjanoksa et al. ( 2019ab ) suggest that whistleblowing trajectories are far more complex and messier than traditionally represented. One finding that is consistently noted across the nursing literature, however, is that nurses are more willing to blow the whistle internally (i.e. to follow the chain of command) (Pohjanoksaet al.,  2019ab ).

In many ways, the COVID‐19 pandemic has challenged foundational understandings of whistleblowing because it unfolded on a global scale, across technologically mediated societies, and at a time where health care workers are more connected than ever. Health care workers turned to online platforms, such as ProMED and Twitter, to sound the alarm in the early days of the pandemic (Lopreite et al.,  2021 ; Wark,  2021 ) and leveraged social media tools to communicate to the public, warn decision‐makers, support each other and share testimonials as the pandemic was unfolding (Gagnon & Perron,  2020b ; Glasdam et al.,  2022 ). Health care workers also faced challenging working conditions compounded by a lack of personal protective equipment (Amon,  2020 ). They also witnessed and experienced the first‐hand impact of COVID‐19 policies, generating unprecedented moral distress and injury (Riedel et al.,  2022 ). As a result, growing numbers of health care workers became whistleblowers and many faced reprisals for their actions (Amon,  2020 ). We believe that studying the uniqueness of whistleblowing during the COVID‐19 pandemic can address existing conceptual and empirical gaps by describing why (e.g. what types of wrongdoings, what motivations and to what ends) and how (e.g. nature of the process, steps followed, tools used) health care workers blow the whistle during a pandemic and situating this experience within a broader social, political, organizational context.

Quebec nurses constitute a novel case study to understand the experiences of nurses who blew the whistle during the COVID‐19 pandemic and identify key takeaways for decision‐makers, researchers, clinicians and nursing unions worldwide. The experience of Dr. Li Wenliang, the original COVID‐19 whistleblower who sounded the alarm on the Chinese messaging platform WeChat on 30 December 2019 and later died of COVID‐19 (Nie & Elliott,  2020 ; Zhu,  2020 ), serves as a strong reminder that whistleblowing in health care is not geographically bounded and that any effort to study the experience of whistleblowers during the pandemic is an opportunity to better support and protect health care workers. As such, the purpose of this paper is to present the findings of a case study that provides insights into the experiences of nurses who blew the whistle and offers potential avenues for improving supports to nurses moving forward.

3. THE STUDY

3.2. design.

We used a case study design as defined by Stake ( 2005 ) and Yin ( 2018 ) for two main reasons: Quebec's unique and dire context during the first wave of the pandemic and the exertive ways in which nurses engaged in acts of whistleblowing before and during COVID‐19. More specifically, we opted for a single‐case study design with three embedded units of analysis: news stories, online forms and semi‐structured interviews (see Figure  1 ). This design is appropriate when the selected case is unusual yet representative of a shared experience (i.e. blowing the whistle during a pandemic), and it has the potential to make a new and significant contribution to knowledge development (Stake,  2005 ; Yin,  2018 ). As such, the goal of single‐case studies is not to generalize from a single case but rather to conduct an in‐depth analysis of the selected case because it has the potential to reveal something new about a phenomenon (Stake,  2005 ; Yin,  2018 ). Consistent with single‐case studies, we completed the data collection and analysis for each embedded unit sequentially and then triangulated the three units to build a case description (Yin,  2018 ). We approached triangulation from an interpretive stance and included multiple data units to add ‘rigor, breadth, complexity, richness and depth’, not as a means of validation (Denzin,  2012 , p. 82). In other words, we used triangulation ‘as an attempt to secure an in‐depth understanding of the phenomenon in question’ (Denzin,  2012 , p. 82).

Case study.

3.3. Data collection

Our single‐case study included three embedded units.

The first unit consisted of news stories published in Canadian media during the first wave of the pandemic. We completed our search using the Google Advanced Search operator, which provides the options of using and combining keywords, as well as limiting the search to a specific country (in this case, Canada) and specific dates (January–May 2020). We included the months of January and February because nurses were already blowing the whistle about pandemic preparedness and early response (before the first case of COVID‐19 was confirmed in Canada). We described our complete search strategy elsewhere (Gagnon & Perron,  2020b ). After screening our initial sample of 119 news stories and eliminating duplicates, we included 83 news stories (Gagnon & Perron,  2020a , 2020b ).

The second unit consisted of online forms completed by nurses and posted on ‘ Je dénonce ’ [I denounce], a public whistleblowing platform launched by the ‘ Fédération interprofessionnelle de la santé du Québec’ (FIQ) in March 2020. The FIQ is a union representing close to 80,000 health care workers in Quebec, the majority of whom are nurses. The platform was created to expose the experiences of frontline health workers, patients and families and to provide real‐time access to media, the public and decision‐makers. The online form allowed the user to report concerns about the pandemic mismanagement in care facilities and its impact on patients, families and staff. We retrieved 611 forms posted by nurses on the platform between March 2020, when the platform was launched, and May 2020. A total of 597 forms were deemed to meet our inclusion criteria: (1) submitted by nurses and (2) related to COVID‐19 (Perron et al.,  2020a ).

Finally, the third unit consisted of semi‐structured interviews conducted with Quebec nurses (September–December 2020). Nurses were recruited using e‐cards shared on social media and within existing professional networks. Participants were eligible to take part in this study if they: identified as a nurse (i.e. registered nurse, nurse practitioner or licensed practical nurse), practiced in Quebec during the first wave of the COVID‐19 pandemic and had a least one experience of whistleblowing during this period. Interviews were conducted in French or English, they lasted on average 60 min and were structured to cover four main domains. Each interview started by asking participants to describe their experience(s) of whistleblowing, including the type of wrongdoing(s), the people involved, the context and circumstances, the decision‐making process (including reasons motivating the decision and deliberation involved, if any), the whistleblowing process (including strategies used, reasons for using them and issues encountered) and the outcomes. Then, we asked about the organizational context, and more specifically about the organizational culture and how it shaped the whistleblowing process and the experience(s) more broadly. We also asked about the consequences of the whistleblowing, including professional and personal consequences. Finally, we asked participants to speak to lessons learned; in other words, what did the experience(s) teach them about themselves (as individuals and as nurses), about whistleblowing, about their workplace and about the broader health care system. We concluded by asking them if they had any advice to share with other nurses and if they wanted to offer recommendations for nursing organizations. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Saturation was reached at 15 interviews.

3.4. Ethical considerations

News stories and online forms, both publicly accessible, did not require ethics approval. Approvals from the research ethics boards of the University of Victoria, University of Ottawa, McGill University, Université du Québec en Outaouais and Université Laval were obtained for the interview portion of the study. Informed consent was obtained prior to each interview. Pseudonyms were assigned to participants to ensure confidentiality. Compensation for the interview was provided.

3.5. Data analysis

Each unit of analysis was analysed separately using a ‘ground up’ approach (Yin,  2018 ) and sequentially, and then triangulated to generate the findings presented in this paper.

We analysed the news stories using a content analysis approach, which is particularly useful when working with large amounts of textual data (Hsiu‐Hsieh & Shannon,  2005 ; Schreier,  2014 ). We began by dissecting each news story using a series of questions: Who is speaking? Are they speaking as a nursing collective ( e.g. union, association, regulatory body) or as individual nurses? Are individual nurses anonymized or identified ( e.g. full name; with or without picture)? What is being said in the news story? What is the essence of the message? How is the message changing over time? Content extracted from this first round of high‐level analysis was then analysed inductively to identify common themes (Gagnon & Perron,  2020b ).

We also used a content analysis approach to work through the online forms. However, given the size of the data set, we opted for a blend of inductive and deductive analysis. First, 50 randomly selected forms were analysed inductively to create a preliminary thematic structure. Then, 20 additional forms were analysed to ‘test’ our thematic structure, add emerging themes or combine existing themes. Using 10 additional forms, we confirmed there were no new themes and then worked through the rest of the data set by organizing it according to the thematic structure and frequency (Perron, et al.,  2020a ).

Interviews were analysed using Applied Thematic Analysis (ATA) (Guest et al.,  2011 ). ATA involves four general steps: (1) read and code transcriptions, (2) identify possible themes, (3) compare and contrast themes, identifying structure amongst them and (4) produce a thematic scheme to describe the research phenomenon. We coded five interviews to identify broad themes that were then compared and contrasted as we analysed more interviews. These final organizing themes included: (1) Who is speaking (the whistleblower), (2) Where are they located (relationship to space and place), (3) What are they reporting (types of wrongdoings), (4) How are they reporting, using what strategies and why (whistleblowing process) and (5) What consequences of whistleblowing, real or perceived, do they describe (types of consequences).

Once the thematic analysis was completed, we moved to the final step in case study research: merging all three units to develop a case description (Yin,  2018 ). Case descriptions are particularly useful to descriptive case studies designed to offer new insights into a phenomenon and identify explanations that merit further exploration. Our case description sought to answer the following question: What can we learn from the experiences of Quebec nurses about the phenomenon of ‘whistleblowing during a pandemic’? To answer this question, we triangulated the three units to look for patterns and elements of explanations (Yin,  2018 ).

3.6. Rigour

We used a number of strategies to ensure rigour. Prior to conducting the study, we reviewed the literature and completed a concept analysis of whistleblowing in nursing (Gagnon & Perron,  2020a ). We selected a case that meets the criteria for case study research and used multiple sources of data to gain a more in‐depth understanding the case (Yin,  2018 ). We maintained credibility by triangulating three units of analysis and maintaining prolonged engagement in the field (Houghton et al.,  2013 ). We provided a rich description of the context to situate our findings and kept an audit trail of our process. Finally, we presented and discussed the findings with the aim of maximizing transferability while also pointing out unique elements of the case that other researchers can learn from and potentially use to inform future research.

4.1. News stories

The voices of Quebec nurses were overrepresented in our sample (66%). Of the 83 news stories, 38 (46%) were published in English and 45 (54%) in French. News stories often included both collective and individual voices. Unions were the strongest collective voices in the sample, featured in 55% ( n  = 46) of the news stories. The FIQ was by far the most active union voice, appearing in more than half of those stories. We found equal numbers of stories in which nurses were identified (with name and picture) and anonymized. The main reason cited for requesting anonymity was the risk of workplace retaliation and sanctions (including job loss) for speaking out in the media.

4.2. Online forms

Our sample exclusively included online forms submitted by nurses. The online form included the option of entering personal information (i.e. name, title, workplace). However, in the majority of our sample, nurses opted not to disclose such information. The form also included a text box and the option of attaching a document or a picture. Our sample included the text box content of the forms submitted by 597 nurses.

4.3. Interviews

We interviewed 15 nurses, including licensed practical nurses ( n  = 1) and registered nurses with a college ( n  = 4) or a university ( n  = 10) degree. The majority of participants reported practising in a hospital setting ( n  = 9), while others reported practising in long‐term care ( n  = 4) and home care ( n  = 2). Out of the 15 participants, 14 self‐identified as women. Most participants were 35 years old or less ( n  = 9). Twelve (80%) participants had been working as a nurse for 10 years or less (6 with 5 years or less of experience, 6 with 5–10 years of experience). Finally, when asked about previous experiences of whistleblowing, half of the participants reported having blown the whistle at least once before COVID‐19.

5. FINDINGS: THE CASE

In accordance with case study methodology, our findings will be divided into two sections. The first section details contextual conditions before and during COVID‐19. Such conditions are paramount to understanding the case and interpreting the themes identified in the data. The second section presents the themes identified across all three units of analysis.

5.1. Contextual conditions

5.1.1. before the covid ‐19 pandemic.

Already before the pandemic, acts of whistleblowing by Quebec nurses regularly made headlines due to several factors. Interestingly, these same factors fueled the devastating effects/experience of the first wave in Quebec and forced nurses to scale up their external whistleblowing strategies. One important factor, as stated by Alami et al. ( 2021 ), was the 2015 reform of the Quebec health care system, which merged 182 health and social service organizations into 34 megastructures of 12,000–15,000 employees, followed by extensive financial and staffing cuts to management and public health. This reform profoundly impaired, and in some instances eradicated, internal communication channels normally used by nurses to report wrongdoing to management. Another factor was the persistent and normalized use, for nearly two decades, of mandatory overtime as a routine management strategy to address the nursing shortage, despite extensive evidence that it discouraged full‐time employment, fueled nurse burnout and departure, and hindered retention efforts (Quebec Nurses Association,  2019 ). In other words, by normalizing the use of emergency powers as a routine management strategy, Quebec entered the pandemic with a weakened nursing workforce whose capacity to handle increased demands, high patient loads and forced overtime was exceedingly jeopardized.

The culture of silence across the health care system was an important factor denounced before the pandemic. This culture favoured the muzzling and disciplining of whistleblowers to the detriment of transparency and organizational change. It is worth recalling that in 2017, the Quebec government implemented the Act to facilitate the disclosure of wrongdoings relating to public bodies . The main purpose of this law was to protect whistleblowers in the public sector, including in publicly funded health care settings and facilities. However, instead of facilitating whistleblowing, it has been found to provide a narrow pathway for disclosure and impose conditions under which public disclosure can be made—and protection granted. In view of the above, Quebec entered the first wave of the COVID‐19 pandemic with a law that did not significantly change the culture of silence in health care, nor did it offer concrete disclosure tools or mechanisms for nurses to use.

5.1.2. During the COVID ‐19 pandemic

In addition to the three pre‐existing factors described above, it is important to highlight a number of pandemic‐related events and decisions that further fueled nurse whistleblowing in Quebec. On March 21, 2020, the Minister of Health and Social Services issued a Ministerial Order (2020‐007) under the Public Health Act to suspend multiple clauses of health care workers' collective agreements and allow employers to cancel union leaves, suspend, cancel or defer vacation time, redeploy staff, change work schedules, force employees to work full‐time and suspend mechanisms for grievances and arbitrations. As we write this paper, this Ministerial Order remains in effect. On March 30, 2020, the FIQ launched its public whistleblowing platform ‘ Je dénonce ’ [I denunce], which we described above. That same week, the Quebec government announced a new online portal called ‘ Je contribue! ’ [I contribute!] to recruit working or retired members of the public as volunteers to support the government's pandemic response, particularly in long‐term care. A month later, the Canadian government announced it was sending the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) to help in Quebec's long‐term care facilities.

On May 16, 2020, in light of the overwhelming success of ‘ Je dénonce ’ [I denunce] and the resulting exposure of pandemic mismanagement across care settings, the Ministry of Health and Social Services announced the creation of a new email box called ‘ On vous écoute ’ [We are listening] to encourage health care workers to report issues directly to the Ministry. This initiative, an attempt to ‘end the culture of silence’ as stated by the Minister of Health and Social Services at the time (Fréchette & Béfort‐Doucet,  2021 , p. 18), was met with criticisms for several reasons: It failed to address the long‐standing culture of silence in the health care system; it lacked transparency; it did not provide safeguards for health care workers who reported concerns; it redirected nurses away from external whistleblowing channels (e.g. social media, media and ‘ Je dénonce ’ [I denunce]) towards internal ones and, crucially, it removed critical pandemic management problems from public view, thus eliminating a key tool for transparency and accountability. Later that month, the CAF released a damning report documenting critical failures in long‐term care facilities, where the highest COVID mortality rate occurred (a public inquest into long‐term care deaths has just concluded). During the first wave, close to 4000 long‐term care residents died of COVID‐19 in Quebec. More than 15,000 cases were recorded amongst residents and staff, which represents 60% of all long‐term care cases in the country (CIHI,  2021 ). At the peak of the first wave, Quebec was ‘reportedly the seventh deadliest place in the world’ (Flood et al.,  2020 , p. 6).

5.2. Key themes within the case

We identified five themes across our case (see Figure  2 ). Together, these themes elucidate why and how nurse whistleblowing is different in pandemic times. While these themes are specific to the case (i.e. whistleblowing amongst Quebec nurses) and the contextual conditions outlined above, they offer a more nuanced understanding of nurse whistleblowing and address important gaps in knowledge. As previously mentioned, whistleblowing research and theory have traditionally taken as a starting point the experience of employees who witness particular wrongdoing in the workplace and disclose such wrongdoings—usually internally first, then externally when internal strategies have failed (Gagnon & Perron,  2020a ). During the first wave of the pandemic, however, nurses across all units of analysis repeatedly witnessed exceedingly high numbers of intersecting wrongdoings that entailed significant risks regarding the rights, safety, health and well‐being of both patients and staff. This resulted in high levels of moral distress. In nurses' view, the urgency of the situations (e.g. high or immediate risks)—and the crisis context more broadly—justified swift actions and led to a shift in their perceptions of whistleblowing, wherein anticipated benefits of disclosing wrongdoings outweighed other considerations. Nurses' sense of loyalty and obligation was also in flux for the reasons outlined below. Finally, they were privy to information about the risks and the harms associated with the pandemic response that, for the most part, was unknown to the public—and to some extent, to elected officials and policymakers.

5.2.1. Shifting sense of loyalty and relationship to workplace culture

Our findings revealed that Quebec nurses who blew the whistle during the first wave of COVID‐19 did not experience the classic ‘clash of loyalty’ (employer vs patient) widely described in the whistleblowing literature. It was evident across our sample that COVID‐19 measures and the overall response had contributed to a shift in loyalty for nurses who felt discredited, ignored, instrumentalized, devalued and abandoned by employers and the government.

I knocked on all the doors. I wrote a 16‐page testimonial asking management for help. I sent emails. I wrote on Messenger, I called … But no one came, no one came to help. (Online form 840)

The many workplace safety issues faced by nurses, especially the lack of access to adequate personal protective equipment (PPE), contributed to this shift in loyalty. Our sample included hundreds of testimonials from nurses reporting insufficient PPE as well as situations in which employers knowingly and intentionally rationed, locked away and denied access to PPE. Nurses felt that employers breached their social contract and jeopardized patients' and employees' safety, health and lives. In fact, one of the most common feelings expressed in our data was that of feeling ‘disposable.’

We feel like objects, like pawns that are being moved on a chessboard. We are being held hostage. “This ministerial order is a bomb,” she says, “Mr. Legault (the Premier),” you are losing your guardian angels. We are not numbers, we are not robots. (Anonymous nurse quoted in a news story published on April 30, 2020)

Interestingly, nurses who engaged in public (external) acts of whistleblowing, often fully identified, had a different relationship to workplace culture. Nurses who volunteered in long‐term care facilities, for example, were amongst the most vocal of all nurse whistleblowers. We found that having no ties to these facilities, no contractual agreements and no perceived duty of loyalty to management significantly influenced how nurses blew the whistle. In other words, being an ‘outsider’ facilitated external whistleblowing. Furthermore, for nurse volunteers, their status allowed them to resign easily from their position and escalate their whistleblowing efforts:

I think it [whistleblowing and resigning] was easier for me, being a volunteer and not attached to the long‐term care home. My job was not on the line. The long‐term care home was not my employer. (Blandine, October 22, 2020)

The high‐profile testimonial of nurse Nadia Lambert, which was initially posted on Facebook, shared 20,000 times in 24 h and relayed across multiple news outlets, illustrates how having no relationship with care settings and, most importantly, nothing to lose played a role in shaping nurses' whistleblowing strategies. Lambert volunteered 8 days in long‐term care before resigning, raising the alarm on appalling care conditions that were later documented in the CAF report: extreme understaffing, lack of PPE and equipment (e.g. thermometer, saturometer, etc.), abandonment of residents in unsafe and unhygienic conditions, residents experiencing hunger and dehydration, unsafe transfers leading to preventable COVID‐19 transmission and deaths.

5.2.2. Intersecting wrongdoings amplified by mismanagement and long‐standing issues

Our findings depart from the traditional definition of whistleblowing as a process that seeks to expose one particular type of wrongdoing (e.g. wrongful practice, illicit behaviour, criminal conduct). During the first wave of COVID‐19, nurses faced a high number of intersecting wrongdoings on a daily basis related to insufficient PPE and staffing, unsafe working conditions, excessive mandatory overtime, communication breakdowns and breaches of infection prevention and control protocols. These wrongdoings manifested in practice, but they were managerial and political in nature: they arose from the mismanagement of the pandemic and government actions, most notably the issuing of the Ministerial Order in March 2020. This order suspended nurses' collective agreement, curtailed their labour rights and degraded their working conditions, creating a fertile ground for increased risks and unchecked abuses by management:

I find it strange that my organization is using the Ministerial Order. They are already cancelling vacations and holidays, and imposing mandatory overtime, but there is no need for it. I work in the Intensive Care Unit, and there are no COVID‐19 cases because we are transferring them automatically. We are not eligible for the COVID‐19 bonus for that reason! Why use the Ministerial Order when we don't have a bonus for the exact reason that we are not experiencing a COVID‐19 crisis? We have a staff surplus every day, but they are forcing nurses to work full‐time regardless? My organization is using powers granted by the government even though it doesn't need to, just because they can! (Online form 797)

Across our sample, nurses described the Ministerial Order as a blunt instrument that was overused (and abused) in the health care system. In particular, nurses denounced the fact that the order exacerbated many long‐standing issues (e.g. nurse burnout) entrenched by a 20‐year legacy of using exceptional measures such as mandatory overtime as a routine management practice rather than addressing deteriorating care environments. As one interview participant explained, Quebec nurses were already frequently working 16‐h shifts in mandatory overtime before COVID‐19. As one participant noted, following the Ministerial Order:

The imposition of mandatory overtime increased a lot. The increase was phenomenal (…) For example, there was one shift where the unit was five nurses short, and they didn't find anyone. All the nurses were forced into overtime, and they all did a 16‐h shift. (Hélène, November 11, 2020)

During the interview, Hélène further described an instance of being forced to work 24 consecutive hours and waking up the next day feeling ‘hungover’ from severe fatigue. That day, she decided to undertake several steps to blow the whistle. She explained her breaking point:

I had a major panic attack the next day. This experience really shook my mental health. I was questioning myself. At first, I was wondering if I was the problem or if I was unable to give enough at work. I thought that maybe I was deficient as a nurse, you know? Working 16 h is so normalized. Same for working crazy shifts while putting yourself second and having no regard for your needs, desires, and passions. And finally, I came to the conclusion that the problem wasn't me, that I wasn't sick. The health care system is sick. (Hélène, November 11, 2020)

The Ministerial Order also exacerbated another long‐standing issue in the Quebec health care system: the culture of silence. As employers enacted policies preventing nurses from speaking to the media or posting on social media and threatened nurses with sanctions (e.g. discipline, suspension, dismissal), nursing unions, online nursing support groups and individual nurses became more vocal. Whistleblowing became imperative not only because of multiplying wrongdoings experienced in the workplace but also because of mounting pressures to muzzle nurses. As FIQ then‐President Nancy Bédard explained in one news story:

Nurses are exasperated. They are abused right now. We give them minimal PPE, we don't protect them. They are exhausted. They are hearing that their right to paid vacation will be limited. We are forcing them to work two weekends out of three. Their schedules are changed because of the Ministerial Order. The Minister issues orders and grants powers to health care organizations that then, in turn, create working conditions that are extremely difficult and baffle their rights (…). What we want is for nurses to be able to speak freely. (May 16, 2020)

5.2.3. Lack of trust and transparency creating a need for external whistleblowing

Nurses engaged in internal whistleblowing or external whistleblowing, or both. Internally, the two main strategies mentioned across the sample were emailing one's superior or using institutional forms such as incident reports. Nurses shared that these strategies were ineffective, and for many, they even resulted in targeted retaliation and sanctions, including reprimand letters and suspensions. Notably, many nurses who wished to sound the alarm internally were unable to find effective means to do so within the organizations where they worked or volunteered. One interview participant, who made multiple attempts to report serious issues internally, summarized it as such:

Basically, I realized that not only did official [internal] channels not work but there aren't any, really, like they don't really exist. I asked everyone, “What is the official channel for reporting this [lack of PPE]?” and no one knew. They all said “maybe this or that,” but no one was able to tell me (…). It was eye‐opening for me. I knew that official channels were like an illusion, that they didn't really work, but then I experienced it. Trying to find them, and they just don't exist. (Gabriella, October 16, 2020)

Data across all three units showed that institutional reporting channels were already deficient or inexistent before the COVID‐19 pandemic. Furthermore, for many nurses, the decision to turn to outside channels was also due to the fact that the issues they needed to report were organizational, making internal reporting channels less safe. There was a clear lack of trust in organizations and, more broadly, in the Ministry of Health and Social Services. Most importantly, nurses felt that reporting internally would fail to generate the needed response to address critical issues in a timely manner or, worse, would further silence nurses and keep these issues hidden from public view. As a result, many nurses privileged external whistleblowing strategies, including social media posts on individual and group pages, social media campaigns, media interviews and public testimonials through FIQ's whistleblowing platform ‘ Je dénonce ’ [I denunce]. We found many examples of one of these strategies leading to another. For example, media accessing and citing public testimonials posted on ‘ Je dénonce ’ [I denunce] as they reported on the pandemic:

We are admitting patients diagnosed with pneumonia. No COVID‐19 testing for these patients. No access to N‐95 masks. The staff working on units with suspected COVID‐19 patients are sent to work on other units the next day. (Anonymous nurse testimonial posted on ‘ Je dénonce ’ [I denunce] and featured in a news story published on March 31, 2020)

External whistleblowing strategies were motivated by the seriousness and urgency of the issues faced by nurses as well as the need for greater transparency. By acting as a conduit between nurses, media outlets, decision‐makers and the public, the FIQ platform filled an important informational gap and mitigated the risk of blowing the whistle externally. It also provided a way for nurses to report unfair labour practices for which they could no longer file a grievance under the Ministerial Order. Thus, we found strong evidence of nurses using the platform to report labour rights issues such as this one:

My superiors are aware of my immunocompromised status, but they are refusing the medical note written by my specialist. They told me I will be assigned to the COVID unit Sunday. (Online form 824)

Reflecting a lack of trust and a need for transparency, nurses were critical of the Ministry's ‘ On vous écoute ’ [We are listening] email box, citing the lack of anonymity, the opacity of the process, the absence of public accountability mechanisms and its stated aim of deterring nurses from blowing the whistle publicly.

5.2.4. Reclaiming rights and building collective solidarity

We found that whistleblowing, in particular external whistleblowing, was not only used to publicly expose wrongdoings and advocate for a better pandemic response, but also to reclaim rights that were thwarted through the Ministerial Order and by the ramping up of managerial efforts to silence nurses. Our analysis of the textual data and interviews shows that speaking up and speaking out during the first wave of COVID‐19 became imperative. While media reporters extensively described nurses' testimonials as a ‘cry for help,’ we argue that they reflected instead nurses' reclaiming their right to speak. One interview participant who did media interviews explained:

It [speaking to media] lifted a weight off my shoulders. To say out loud what others [nurses] were thinking to themselves and did not dare to say (…) I thought to myself that a door was open for me and it wasn't for nothing, so I did it [speak to media]. When I did it, I realized that I didn't care if I got retaliations…Not sure what they would be really, but I just thought to myself that we're in a free country, and we have the right to speak. (Josette, 5 November 2020)

External whistleblowing also allowed nurses to speak as workers and push back against the predominant ‘angel narrative.’ Indeed, during the first two waves, the Quebec Premier consistently described nurses as guardian angels during daily briefings, which nurses viewed as a perverse strategy to encourage and normalize nurses' sacrifice. External whistleblowing allowed the production and dissemination of a counter‐narrative re‐centering nurses as human beings and as workers entitled to protection from unsafe working conditions.

They call us guardian angels, but they treat us like numbers. I'm immunocompromised and failing my fourth treatment for multiple sclerosis. They are refusing my neurologist's medical note and denying my leave. I'm a guardian angel, so I have to continue working despite his advice. I'm a nurse, but I'm seen as a guardian angel. I'm not treated as one. For years now, we've been overworked with more complex patients. We give everything at work, to the detriment of our families (…) In short, Premier Legault, stop calling us guardian angels (…). (Online form 9)

Nurses' desire to be seen and treated as human beings was one of the most consistent threads across the sample. It was also a powerful driver of external whistleblowing because it provided an opportunity to represent nurses as health care workers whose inherent dignity and vulnerability to COVID‐19 demanded recognition, as opposed to disposable caregivers expected to sacrifice themselves. We found that efforts to humanize nurses were part of a broader struggle for nurses to reclaim their rights as workers and speak out against governmental and managerial decisions that put their health, lives and families at risk. These included, but were not limited to, being denied COVID‐19 testing, being forced to work while symptomatic, being refused workplace accommodations, being placed in high‐risk situations (i.e. pregnant nurses, immunocompromised nurses, etc.) and having insufficient/inadequate or no access to adequate PPE. One national media outlet reported a story about a nurse who was denied testing as follows:

That he was told after his shift that he had been exposed to a nurse who tested positive for COVID‐19. When he requested testing, “he was denied testing by the hospital.” At the time of the interview, he [the nurse] insisted on the importance of “testing every single nurse out there.” When asked to comment on the news story, the Quebec Health Minister responded that “testing is a priority,” but residents and patients come first. (Quoted from a video interview, Global News April 16, 2020)

Throughout the sample, we noted that external whistleblowing strategies used by nurses had a strong collective focus; that is, when nurses spoke out and spoke up about their individual experiences, they did so in solidarity with other nurses and for their collective rights. As mentioned above, we also found a high number of news stories featuring collective union voices. This is an important finding because whistleblowing tends to be understood exclusively as an individual phenomenon.

5.2.5. Moral courage in the face of a system in crisis

Our findings suggest that blowing the whistle was experienced and seen as an act of moral courage by nurses. Although slight variations exist in the definition of moral courage, we define it here as the courage a person demonstrates when acting in a way that aligns with their values and beliefs despite fear or threat of negative consequences for the acting individual (Pajakoski et al.,  2021 ). We use the concept of moral courage to capture the motivations, rationales and intentions cited by nurses across all units. Nurses' decisions and actions were first and foremost motivated by a strong sense of moral and professional obligation to advocate for patients. One nurse who resigned from long‐term care after witnessing the deaths of many residents due to COVID‐19 spoke to the media after writing a letter to the Premier, the Minister of Health and the Director of Public Health. She explained what motivated this decision and action:

We've been screaming for help for a long time. This crisis [the COVID‐19 pandemic] exposed the existing flaws in our health care system and how extensive they are. Yes, we [nurses] want to be there and help, but our role as nurses is also to be advocates for our patients. (nurse quoted in a news story published on April 25, 2020)

The rationales underpinning nurses' decisions and actions can be divided into three main categories. The first category focuses on the wrongness of the pandemic response and how it created and exacerbated COVID‐19‐related risks, suffering and deaths. The second category speaks to the need to do the right thing . Nurses were adamant that blowing the whistle, through whatever means necessary, was the right thing to do as nurses because it was in the public's interest, consistent with professional obligations, and a matter of moral integrity. The third category, which emerged clearly and strongly in our data, was the realization on the part of many nurses that they had nothing (or less) to lose and nothing (or less) to fear anymore. Nurses felt that in a system in crisis that desperately needed nurses, they held more power, and they, therefore, assessed the risks of whistleblowing differently than before COVID‐19. While most perceived fewer risks, leading them to act without or despite the fear of negative consequences, for some such fear remained and was the main reason for requesting anonymity in media interviews or for resorting to other reporting strategies, such as the FIQ platform, for example.

We're at a point of wanting to quit collectively. Our employer tried to intimidate us recently at a meeting. One of the nurses got a disciplinary notice yesterday, and she quit on the spot, so the day staff had to do mandatory overtime. (Online form 571)

In addition to the motivations and rationales described above, nurses had clear intentions when they blew the whistle. They were hoping for change, but they were also determined to bring much‐needed awareness to the public, the media and the government about pandemic management failures. In order words, they strove to make the invisible visible. This explains why many of our interview participants stated that blowing the whistle gave them a feeling of ‘mission accomplished,’ regardless of th outcomes.

I guess the moral distress of being too scared to even say anything about it, so you're going to feel worse in the long term. I think that's something that's been really true for me. After I blew the whistle—in both counts [of whistleblowing]—I felt like I fulfilled my duty, like I…There was something wrong, I spoke out about it. And that's all I can do as myself. So I've fulfilled my moral obligation, in that sense. (Anya, October 23, 2020)

6. DISCUSSION

This paper adds to a growing body of evidence on the experience of health care workers, especially nurses, during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Whistleblowing has been and continues to be central to that experience. The case study of Quebec nurses during the first wave is a helpful empirical approach to understanding why and how whistleblowing during a pandemic differs from whistleblowing in other (non‐crisis) contexts. Our findings highlight five main differences, which are likely transferable to other jurisdictions and future pandemics (or public health crises). First, nurses did not perceive a ‘clash of loyalty’ as is typically described in the literature (Gagnon & Perron,  2020a ). This was true for nurses who blew the whistle both as employees and as volunteers. They felt a strong sense of loyalty to the profession, patients and the public, but given widespread managerial abuses and the risks they faced, they did not believe they owed loyalty to employers, institutions and the government. Second, the nature of the wrongdoings witnessed by nurses was managerial and political in nature. This departs from existing literature, which mainly locates wrongdoings within a specific person (e.g. colleague, manager, etc.), workplace or institution. Rarely does the literature on whistleblowing in health care speak to system‐level wrongdoings. Third, nurses did not follow the traditional whistleblowing pathway, which typically begins with the nurse using internal reporting channels before resorting to external whistleblowing when they lose trust in internal channels (e.g. following retaliation) and/or determine that these channels are ineffective. Instead, they turned to external whistleblowing far more quickly, hoping for a prompt, more efficient remediation. Furthermore, nurses across our sample used technologically mediated external whistleblowing strategies that have not been widely studied in nursing. Fourth, external whistleblowing served to reclaim nurses' right to speak and build solidarity amongst nurses. Again, this is not typically documented in the literature, given researchers' emphasis on the whistleblower as an individual and the act of whistleblowing as solely an individual undertaking. Finally, blowing the whistle during a pandemic emerged as an act of moral courage hinging on a shifting understanding of risk, duty and power. This has not been documented in the nursing literature to date.

6.1. Rethinking external whistleblowing

Nursing has a complicated relationship with external whistleblowing. At the level of the profession and the discipline, external whistleblowing is typically depicted as a last resort, a risky practice and an act of disclosure that may run counter to professional and contractual duties—thus leaving nurses with little protection and support (Gagnon & Perron,  2020a ). This approach to external whistleblowing not only shapes the experiences of nurses who blow the whistle but it also governs how we study and think about those experiences. As a result, the nursing literature tends to focus on the whistleblower's beliefs and values (Ahern & McDonald,  2002 ), decision‐making process (Jackson et al.,  2010a ; Pohjanoksa et al.,  2019a , b ) and consequences (Jackson et al.,  2010b , 2011 ; McDonald & Ahern,  2000 , 2002 ; Peters et al.,  2011 ). In other words, research to date focuses on how nurses come to make the ‘difficult’ decision to blow the whistle, which is assumed to only be ethically justifiable in exceptional circumstances and inherently risky, and on the consequences they may face as a result. Less emphasis has been placed on organizational culture and its role in increasing or reducing the need for external whistleblowing, harming or supporting nurse whistleblowers, problematizing or normalizing disclosures of wrongdoings and so forth (Gagnon & Perron,  2020a ; Jackson et al.,  2014 ). Our findings suggest that external whistleblowing is a symptom of a system in crisis, one that triggers an obligation on the part of nurses to speak courageously and openly. They also point to the lack of available alternatives within organizations and nurses' strategic use of technologies to break through a culture of silence that puts patients, nurses and others at risk. Finally, our findings challenge the idea that external whistleblowing always comes at a cost to nurses. We found that the cost of remaining silent can be far greater, especially during a pandemic.

6.2. The role of whistleblowing tools

In light of the COVID‐19 pandemic, it becomes imperative to rethink our understanding of external whistleblowing and current approaches to whistleblowing. Traditionally seen as a process of disclosure initiated by an individual nurse, our findings reveal that this process can and should be facilitated by the development of whistleblowing tools such as the FIQ's online platform ‘ Je dénonce ’ [I denunce]. These tools can assist nurses in alerting the public, the media and government officials to wrongdoings while protecting their identity and preventing retaliation at an organizational level. As shown in our findings, such tools can also support collective solidarity and assist the work of nursing organizations. For example, nursing associations can amass evidence of policy failures to advocate more effectively and nursing unions can collect crucial evidence regarding workplace abuses even as they are locked out of their own bargained collective agreements. This being said, collecting information in itself is not sufficient. For these tools to be effective, they need to be part of a broader strategy towards greater transparency, accountability and responsiveness at the management, leadership and political levels. Without access to whistleblowing tools, nurses and other health care workers have relied heavily on social media platforms to blow the whistle. There is no denying that such platforms have played an important role during the COVID‐19 pandemic by supporting nurses' efforts to exchange information, signal wrongdoings, amplify whistleblowers' disclosures and support one another. However, their use raises a number of questions related to access, design, reach, impact and privacy that have yet to be studied in the context of whistleblowing in health care. In our case study, some nurses commented on the limits of social media platforms, including the risk of generating echo chambers that can, in turn, fuel exhaustion, hopelessness and a false sense of political efficacy.

6.3. The need for whistleblowing protection

In July 2020, Amon published a compelling commentary in The Lancet entitled ‘ Human rights protections are needed alongside PPE for health care workers responding to COVID‐19 .’ The commentary is consistent with our case study data. That is, there is a need to expand our thinking regarding the meaning of the term ‘protection’ to include layers of protection from COVID‐19 and means of protection from management, employers and governments who silence nurses and retaliate against those who blow the whistle. Protection against COVID‐19 is necessary, as our findings suggest, but they are not enough to ensure safe health care environments. It is worth noting that before COVID‐19, organizational cultures of silence, loss of accountability, lack of reciprocity and transparency in management structures and lack of protective policies and legislative structures had already created a context that is ripe for the occurrence of wrongdoing, poor responsiveness to reported concerns, as well as retaliatory practices against those who speak up (Perron et al., 2020b ). Our findings suggest that these issues were significantly amplified during the pandemic and reinforce the need for enhanced protection.

Unlike other employees in the public sector, such as civil servants, Quebec nurses do not benefit from explicit whistleblowing statutory protections. Gruben and Bélanger‐Hardy ( 2020 ) pointed out that ‘whistleblower protection for health care workers [in Canada] continues to be piecemeal at best’ (p. 499). Their analysis of whistleblowing during the COVID‐19 pandemic supports the gaps identified in the case study data. First, at the regulatory level, explicit whistleblowing guidance wa lacking. Second, at an organizational level, the culture of silence across health care settings intensified during the pandemic. Third, at a statutory level, existing laws in Canada left nurses who blew the whistle unprotected.

Existing whistleblower protection laws still come up against the argument of duty of loyalty to the employer, which requires health care workers to approach whistleblowing from the perspective of the employee–employer relationship. While this duty of loyalty is prima facie compatible with duties arising from this relationship in the private sector, it is important to recognize that health care workers acting as public sector employees have additional duties to consider (Brunelle & Samson,  2005 ; Newham et al.,  2021 ), especially in the context of a pandemic. Our findings show that the duty of loyalty of nurses is first and foremost directed towards the patients and the profession. As such, fulfilling their professional duties and protecting patients is more important than maintaining the reputation of their workplaces and employers. This, we argue, is an important part of the social contract between nurses and the public. Our position echoes the recent ruling of the Court of Appeal of Saskatchewan ( 2020 ) in Strom v Saskatchewan Registered Nurses' Association which reiterates the essence of this social contract and affirms nurses' right to speak out (and publicly):

Criticism of the healthcare system is manifestly in the public interest. Such criticism, even by those delivering those services, does not necessarily undermine public confidence in healthcare workers or the healthcare system. Indeed, it can enhance confidence by demonstrating that those with the greatest knowledge of this massive and opaque system, and who have the ability to effect change, are both prepared and permitted to speak and pursue positive change. In any event, the fact that public confidence in aspects of the healthcare system may suffer as a result of fair criticism can itself result in positive change. Such is the messy business of democracy. (para 160)

6.4. Strengths and limitations

This case study offers a significant contribution to the body of literature on whistleblowing in nursing, and it sheds light on important pandemic‐specific considerations that are relevant to decision‐makers, researchers and clinicians. The strengths of our study include the triangulation of three sources of data, the inclusion of a case description to situate the study findings and the selection of a unique case of nurses blowing the whistle with greater intensity than other Canadian provinces through different strategies and one novel, unique whistleblowing tool (the FIQ online platform). However, some limitations should be considered when interpreting our findings. The study was based in one province and may not reflect the reality of nurses in other jurisdictions. Sociodemographic information was only available for interview participants, which limited our understanding of the profile of nurses who blew the whistle. For example, most of our interview participants tended to be younger with less than ten years of nursing experience. We were not able to explore this further in the case study. Finally, the case study focused exclusively on the first wave of the COVID‐19 pandemic.

7. CONCLUSION

Over the course of the COVID‐19 pandemic, whistleblowing by nurses and other health care workers has intensified worldwide and has taken a turn outwards because of various governmental, organizational, managerial and technological factors (Amnesty International,  2020 ). Our case study offers a starting point to understand the experiences of nurses who blow the whistle during a pandemic. We have highlighted the importance of rethinking our understanding of external whistleblowing, developing tools to better support nurses and enacting legislated whistle‐blower protections that account for the nature of wrongdoings brought to the forefront during COVID‐19. Our findings reframe whistleblowing as a positive action rather than a negative one, one that nurses undertake as professionals committed to the public interest, as members of a collective and as workers endowed with basic, inalienable rights. They also further support a view of whistleblowing as a symptom of much broader problems of transparency and accountability. Addressing these problems is a crucial step towards protecting nurses and, therefore, the patients they care for.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

This case study was part of a larger study on whistleblowing for which the listed authors received funding (except CD). The case study design was led by MG. MG, AP, EM and CD collected and analysed the case study data: (1) News stories were collected by MG and analysed with AP, (2) Online forms were collected by EM and CD and analysed with MG and AP, (3) Interviews were conducted by MG and CD and analysed with AP. MG triangulated the data and identified the themes. MG wrote the original draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed to reviewing and editing the manuscript.

FUNDING INFORMATION

This study was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Insight Grant (435‐2019‐1249).

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

We declare no competing interests.

PEER REVIEW

The peer review history for this article is available at https://publons.com/publon/10.1111/jan.15365 .

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank the nurses who participated in this study.

Gagnon, M. , Perron, A. , Dufour, C. , Marcogliese, E. , Pariseau‐Legault, P. , Wright, D. K. , Martin, P. , & Carnevale, F. A. (2022). Blowing the whistle during the first wave of COVID‐19: A case study of Quebec nurses . Journal of Advanced Nursing , 00 , 1–15. 10.1111/jan.15365 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Patient or Public Contribution: No Patient or Public Contribution. This contribution was not part of our study design.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

• Ahern, K. , & McDonald, S. (2002). The beliefs of nurses who were involved in a whistleblowing event . Journal of Advanced Nursing , 38 , 303–309. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02180.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alami, H. , Lehoux, P. , Fleet, R. , Fortin, J.‐P. , Liu, J. , Attieh, R. , Cadeddu, S. B. M. , Samri, M. A. , Salvoldellu, M. , & Ahmed, M. A. A. (2021). How can health systems better prepare for the next pandemic? Lessons learned from the management of COVID‐19 in Quebec (Canada) . Frontiers in Public Health , 9 , 671833. 10.3389/fpubh.2021.671833 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Amnesty International . (2020). Exposed, silenced, attacked: Failures to protect health and essential workers during the COVID‐19 pandemic . https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/pol40/2572/2020/en/
• Amon, J. J. (2020). Human rights protections are needed alongside PPE for health‐care workers responding to COVID‐19 . The Lancet: Global Health , 8 ( 7 ), e896. 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30252-7 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brunelle, C. , & Samson, M. (2005). La liberté d'expression au travail et l'obligation de loyauté du salarié: Plaidoyer pour un espace critique accru [Freedom of expression at work and the duty of loyalty of employees: A call for more critical space] . Les Cahiers de droit , 46 ( 4 ), 847–904. 10.7202/043869 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Canadian Institute of Health Information (CIHI) . (2021). COVID‐19's impact on long‐term care . https://www.cihi.ca/en/covid‐19‐resources/impact‐of‐covid‐19‐on‐canadas‐health‐care‐systems/long‐term‐care
• Canadian Public Health Association . (2021). Review of Canada's initial response to the COVID‐19 pandemic. Review of Canada's initial response to the COVID‐19 pandemic . https://www.cpha.ca/review‐canadas‐initial‐response‐covid‐19‐pandemic
• Court of Appeal of Saskatchewan . (2020). Strom v Saskatchewan Registered Nurses' Association . https://canlii.ca/t/j9z2w
• Denzin, N. (2012). Triangulation 2.0 . Journal of Mixed Method Research , 6 ( 2 ), 80–88. 10.1177/1558689812437186 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Flood, C. M. , MasDonnell, V. , Philpott, J. , Thériault, S. , & Venkatapuram, S. (2020). Overview of COVID‐19: Old and new vulnerabilities. In Flood C. M., MasDonnell V., Philpott J., Thériault S., & Venkatapuram S. (Eds.), Vulnerable: The law, policy and ethics of COVID‐19 (pp. 1–27). University of Ottawa Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fréchette, M , & Béfort‐Doucet, É . (2021). Omertà dans la santé et les services sociaux: Prendre parole sans peur' [Omertà in health care and sociaux services: Speaking out without fear]. À bâbord! https://www.erudit.org/fr/revues/babord/1900‐v1‐n1‐babord06213/96478ac/
• Gagnon, M. , & Perron, A. (2020a). Whistleblowing: A concept analysis . Nursing and Health Sciences , 22 ( 2 ), 381–389. 10.1111/nhs.12667 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gagnon, M. , & Perron, A. (2020b). Nursing voices during COVID‐19: An analysis of Canadian media coverage . Aporia: The Nursing Journal , 12 ( 1 ), 109–113. 10.18192/aporia.v12i1.4842 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Glasdam, S. , Sandberg, H. , Stjernswärd, S. , Jacobsen, F. F. , Grønning, A. H. , & Hybholt, L. (2022). Nurses' use of social media during the COVID‐19 pandemic—A scoping review . PLoS One , 17 ( 2 ), e0263502. 10.1371/journal.pone.0263502 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gruben, V. , & Bélanger‐Hardy, L. (2020). Risking it all: Providing patient care and whistleblowing during a pandemic. In Flood C. M., MasDonnell V., Philpott J., Thériault S., & Venkatapuram S. (Eds.), Vulnerable: The law, policy and ethics of COVID‐19 (pp. 487–499). University of Ottawa Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guest, G. , MacQueen, K. M. , & Namey, E. E. (2011). Applied thematic analysis . Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Houghton, C. , Casey, D. , Shaw, D. , & Murphy, K. (2013). Rigour in qualitative case‐study research . Nurse Researcher , 20 ( 4 ), 12–17. 10.7748/nr2013.03.20.4.12.e326 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hsiu‐Hsieh, H.‐F. , & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis . Qualitative Health Research , 15 ( 9 ), 1277–1288. 10.1177/1049732305276687 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Institut national d'excellence en santé et en service sociaux (INESSS) . (2020). First wave of the COVID‐19 pandemic in Québec: A look at the factors associated with hospitalization and death . https://www.inesss.qc.ca/fileadmin/doc/INESSS/COVID‐19/COVID‐19_INESSS_Summary_COVID_cohort.pdf
• Jackson, D. , Hickman, L. , Hutchinson, M. , Andrew, S. , Smith, J. , Potgieter, I. , Cleary, M. , & Peters, K. (2014). Whistleblowing: An integrative literature review of data‐based studies involving nurses . Contemporary Nurse , 48 , 240–252. 10.1080/10376178.2014.11081946 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jackson, D. , Peters, K. , Andrew, S. , Edenborough, M. , Halcomb, E. , Luck, L. , Salamonson, Y. , Weaver, R. , & Wilkes, L. (2010a). Trial and retribution: A qualitative study of whistleblowing and workplace relationship in nursing . Contemporary Nurse , 36 , 34–44. 10.5172/conu.2010.36 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jackson, D. , Peters, K. , Andrew, S. , Edenborough, M. , Halcomb, E. , Luck, L. , Salamonson, Y. , & Wilkes, L. (2010b). Understanding whistleblowing: Qualitative insights from nurse whistleblowers . Journal of Advanced Nursing , 66 , 2194–2201. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05365.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jackson, D. , Peters, K. , Hutchinson, M. , Edenborough, M. , Luck, L. , & Wilkes, L. (2011). Exploring confidentiality in the context of nurse whistle blowing: Issues for nurse managers . Journal of Nursing Management , 19 , 655–663. 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01169.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lopreite, M. , Panzarasa, P. , Puliga, M. , & Riccaboni, M. (2021). Early warnings of COVID‐19 outbreaks across Europe from social media . Scientific Reports , 11 , 2147. 10.1038/s41598-021-81333-1 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mannion, R. , Blenkinsopp, J. , Powell, M. , McHale, J. , Millar, R. , Snowden, N. , & Davies, H. (2018). Understanding the knowledge gaps in whistleblowing and speaking up in health care: Narrative reviews of the research literature and formal inquiries, a legal analysis and stakeholder interviews . Health Services and Delivery Research , 6 ( 30 ), 1–220. 10.3310/hsdr06300 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mansbach, A. , & Bachner, Y. G. (2010). Internal or external whistleblowing: Nurses' willingness to report wrongdoing . Nursing Ethics , 17 ( 4 ), 483–490. 10.1177/0969733010364898 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McDonald, S. , & Ahern, K. (2000). The professional consequences of whistleblowing by nurses . Journal of Professional Nursing , 16 , 313–321. 10.1053/jpnu.2000.18178 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McDonald, S. , & Ahern, K. (2002). Physical and emotional effects of whistle blowing . Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services , 40 ( 1 ), 14–27. 10.3928/0279-3695-20020101-09 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Near, J. P. , & Miceli, M. P. (1985). Organizational dissidence: The case of whistle‐blowing . Journal of Business Ethics , 4 , 1–16. 10.1007/BF00382668 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Newham, R. , Hewison, A. , Graves, J. , & Boyal, A. (2021). Human rights education in patient care: A literature review and critical discussion . Nursing Ethics , 28 ( 2 ), 190–209. 10.1177/0969733020921512 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nie, J.‐B. , & Elliott, C. (2020). Humiliating whistle‐blowers: Li Wenliang, the response to Covid‐19, and the call for a decent society . Bioethical Inquiry , 17 , 543–547. 10.1007/s11673-020-09990-x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pajakoski, E. , Rannikko, S. , Leino‐Kilpi, H. , & Numminen, O. (2021). Moral courage in nursing–An integrative literature review . Nursing & Health Sciences , 23 ( 3 ), 570–585. 10.1111/nhs.12805 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perron, A. , Marcogliese, E. , Dufour, C. , & Gagnon, M. (2020a). La dénonciation infirmière en contexte de pandémie de COVID‐19: Une analyse de contenu de la plate‐forme ‘Je dénonce’ . Aporia: The Nursing Journal , 12 ( 1 ), 76–90. 10.18192/aporia.v12i1.4840 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Perron, A. , Rudge, T. , & Gagnon, M. (2020b). Hypervisible nurses: Effects of circulating ignorance and knowledge on acts of whistleblowing in health . Advances in Nursing Science , 43 ( 2 ), 114–131. 10.1097/ANS.0000000000000311 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peters, K. , Luck, L. , Hutchinson, M. , Wilkes, L. , Andres, S. , & Jackson, D. (2011). The emotional sequelae of whistleblowing: Findings from a qualitative study . Journal of Clinical Nursing , 20 , 2907–2914. 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.03718.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pohjanoksa, J. , Stolt, M. , Suhonen, R. , & Leino‐Kilpi, H. (2019a). Wrongdoing and whistleblowing in health care . Journal of Advanced Nursing , 75 ( 7 ), 1504–1517. 10.1111/jan.13979 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pohjanoksa, J. , Stolt, M. , Suhonen, R. , Löyttyniemi, E. , & Leino‐Kilpi, H. (2019b). Whistle‐blowing process in healthcare: From suspicion to action . Nursing Ethics , 26 , 526–540. 10.1177/0969733017705005 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Quebec Nurses Association . (2019). ‘ Note politique: Temps supplémentaire obligatoire’ [Political Brief: Mandatory overtime]. https://www.aqii‐qna.org/post/temps‐suppl%C3%A9mentaire‐obligatoire
• Riedel, P.‐L. , Kreh, A. , Kulcar, V. , Lieber, A. , & Juen, B. (2022). A scoping review of moral stressors, moral distress and moral injury in healthcare workers during COVID‐19 . International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 19 , 1666. 10.3390/ijerph19031666 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schreier, M. (2014). Qualitative content analysis. In Flick U. (Ed.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis (pp. 170–183). Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stake, R. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In Denzin N. K. & Lincoln Y. S. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466). Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Statistic Canada (2021). Population estimates, quarterly . https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1710000901 [ PubMed ]
• Urrutia, D. , Manetti, E. , Williamson, M. , & Emeline, L. (2021). Case report: Overview of Canada's answer to the COVID‐19 pandemic's first wave (January‐April 2020) . International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 18 , 7131. 10.3390/ijerph18137131 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wark, W. (2021). Building a better global health security early‐warning system post‐COVID: The view from Canada . International Journal , 76 ( 1 ), 55–67. 10.1177/0020702020985227 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Designs and methods (6th ed.). Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhu, J. (2020). Is it ethical to be a 'whistleblower' during COVID‐19 pandemic? Ethical challenges confronted by health care workers in China . Journal of Advanced Nursing , 76 , 1873–1875. 10.1111/jan.14376 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Throw Out Your Assumptions About Whistleblowing

• Stephen Stubben

Accountability is good for business.

The authors observe an increase over time in the volume of internal whistleblowing reports, but discover that it is not because of increased fraud. Rather, they find, we may be entering the golden age of internal whistleblowing systems where employees are speaking up more than ever, to the benefit of those companies that elicit and effectively investigate these reports. They find three ways companies can better understand and use their whistleblower systems. First, understand that more reports is better than fewer reports. Second, place more trust in reports that include secondhand information. Finally, don’t ignore reports that include few details.

Whistleblowing stories are all over the news. Some observers have attributed this to a systemic change in society. There are more stories about whistleblowing, the argument goes , because there are more crimes to report.

• KW Kyle Welch is an assistant professor of accountancy at The George Washington University School of Business.
• SS Stephen Stubben is an associate professor at the University of Utah.

Partner Center

May 9, 2019

When Engineers Become Whistleblowers

They’re often the first to notice waste, fraud and safety issues

By Ralph Nader

Getty Images

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American

“Fundamental Canon No. 1” of the American Society of Engineers states that “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.” Most engineering societies have this principle in their codes of ethics. This duty frames the decades of struggles by conscientious engineers—whether employees or consultants—who strive to balance professional ethics with occupational survival.

Compared to the technologically stagnant dark days in the auto industry of cruel suppression of technical dissent over safety and toxic emissions, a censorship that carried over to the industry-controlled Society of Automotive Engineers, today’s engineers are working in an improved environment for taking their conscience to work. Yet much more remains to be done to safeguard the ability of engineers to speak truth to the powers-that-be.

For starters, the word whistle-blower —once popularly meant to describe a snitch or a disgruntled employee—now describes an ethical person willing to put his or her job on the line in order to expose corrupt, illegal, fraudulent and harmful activities. Indeed, in the aftermath of recent Boeing 737 MAX crashes, the media routinely and positively refers to disclosures by “Boeing whistle-blowers.” Congressional investigating committees and federal agencies have called for whistle-blowers to come forward and shed light on corporate misdeeds and governmental agency lapses.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

To put it mildly, this was not always the case. In 1971, I convened the Conference on Professional Responsibility—a sober name for a group of whistle-blowers from corporations, government and unions. They were ragged as “malcontents” or “occupational-suiciders.” In fact, they were courageous, accurate, morally right, and willing to lose everything to expose wrongdoing.

Keynoters at the whistle-blower conference were Senator William Proxmire, who protected government whistle-blowers on military defense issues, and Robert Townsend, author of the best-selling Up the Organization. Townsend drew from his business experience to explain the critical role whistle-blowing could play in giant corporations. Law Professor Arthur Miller reviewed the lack of legal protection and vulnerability of whistle-blowers and presented what the law should provide “in its institutions and principles.” (See Whistle Blowing: The Report of the Conference on Professional Responsibility , by Ralph Nader, Peter Petkas and Kate Blackwell, 1972).

After this watershed conference, much began to change. Numerous health and safety statutes now protect government employees who report noncompliance with environmental, worker safety and labor standards. Starting in 1978, a Merit System Protection Board was established and later strengthened under President George Herbert Walker Bush to give federal employees some, but not enough, due process against retaliation. Several states followed with their own whistle-blower protections.

In 1977 an NGO called the Government Accountability Project (GAP) started offering pro bono representation to many government and corporate whistle-blowers. After the enactment of the 1986 False Claims Act , federal employees exposing fraud against the government were able to secure a sizable portion of any resultant verdict or settlement against those ripping off the taxpayers. This law alone has recovered over $60 billion from the fraudsters. Private law firms and the Justice Department are regularly involved in pursuing these claims.

The vast world of state and federal procurement/military contracts and infrastructure is known to be rife with “waste, fraud and abuse.” Engineers are most likely to see such violations first. Decades ago, foreshadowing the many challenges in engineering, the Society of Professional Engineers, in its code of ethics, instructed engineers on their obligation to report safety and fraud violations to the appropriate outside authorities, should they find no recourse inside their place of employment.

With $5 trillion of deferred maintenance for our public works, as measured by the American Society of Civil Engineers, the challenges to the assertion of engineering conscientiousness will be ever larger.

We need more public interest engineering advocacy groups and initiatives to open up new frontiers of excellence and service as well as to support engineers inside the corporate framework. It was a Caltech professor, Arie Jan Haagen-Smit, not GM engineers or chemists, who proved in the 1950s the connection between motor vehicles and the lethal photochemical smog over the cities and suburbs of California. This led to smog-control regulations and ethical and legal foundations for industrial air pollution controls.

Engineer Ralf Hotchkiss , rendered a paraplegic before college, courageously revolutionized the functional and economical design of superior wheelchairs, including showing natives how to utilize local materials in poor countries. He also helped break the virtual wheelchair monopoly of a British multinational company in the process. We need more engineers who embody the three principles of any profession—independence, scholarly pursuits, and commitment to public service. Those are the vital ethical pillars to helping engineers withstand the great pressures to place commercial priorities over their engineering integrity and limit harm to the public. We see the push to relegate engineers to indentured status in industries such as the chemical, nuclear, weapons systems, mining, auto, aviation, railroad and medical devices industries, as well as the new unregulated areas of biotechnology, nanotechnology and artificial intelligence.

There has been progress in legal protections for whistle-blowers, more civil litigations and, importantly, higher public expectations and popular support for these unsung protectors. There is, however, much more work to do, especially in educating the engineering school curricula and encouraging the numerous engineering societies to take their codes of ethics seriously. But as Nassim Taleb, author of The Black Swan, has written, “Mental clarity is the child of courage, not the other way around.”

In 1966, in an address to a chapter of the American Society of Engineering Education (reprinted in the new book Ethics, Politics, and Whistleblowing in Engineering , by Nicholas Sakellariou and Rania Milleron [my niece], CRC Press), I said “the [engineering] profession must assert itself towards its most magnificent aspirations—for so much of our future is in your trust.”

Well, isn’t that a great understatement today!?

Organizational Dissidence: The Case of Whistle-Blowing

• First Online: 01 January 2012

Cite this chapter

• Janet P. Near 3 &
• Marcia P. Miceli 4  

Part of the book series: Advances in Business Ethics Research ((ABER,volume 2))

5687 Accesses

4 Citations

Research on whistle-blowing has been hampered by a lack of a sound theoretical base. In this paper, we draw upon existing theories of motivation and power relationships to propose a model of the whistle-blowing process. This model focuses on decisions made by organization members who believe they have evidence of organizational wrongdoing, and the reactions of organization authorities. Based on a review of the sparse empirical literature, we suggest variables that may affect both the members’ decisions and the organization’s responses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Adam, J.S. 1963. Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67: 422–424.

Article   Google Scholar  

Athanassiades, J.C. 1973. The distortion of upward communication in hierarchical organizations. Academy of Management Journal 16: 207–236.

Athanassiades, J.C. 1974. An investigation of some communication patterns of female subordinates in hierarchical organizations. Human Relations 27: 195–209.

Baker, M. 1983. Employer response to professional complaints and alarms: Can corporate scientists and engineers speak out? Presented at the Annual Institute for Chemists, Atlantic City, NJ, May 1983.

Google Scholar  

Benson, J.K. 1977. Organizations: A dialectical view. Administrative Science Quarterly 22: 1–21.

Campbell, D.T., and J. Stanley. 1966. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research . Chicago: Rand McNally.

Clinard, M.B. 1983. Corporate ethics and crime: The role of middle management . Beverly Hills: Sage.

Columbus Dispatch. 1983.‘Pratt & Whitney prices spur federal inquiry’, Originally in the Chicago Tribune, reported in the Columbus Dispatch , Mar 27, A7.

Costanzo, P.R., and M.E. Shaw. 1966. Conformity as a function of age level. Child Development 37: 967–975.

Dozier, J.B., and M.P. Miceli. 1984. Whistle-blowing as prosocial behavior: A review of potential predictors. Working Paper 84–88. College of Administrative Science, Ohio State University, Columbus.

Elliston, F.A. 1982a. Anonymity and whistle-blowing. Journal of Business Ethics 1: 167–177.

Elliston, F.A. 1982b. Civil disobedience and whistle-blowing: A comparative appraisal of two forms of dissent. Journal of Business Ethics 1: 23–28.

Emerson, R.E. 1962. Tower-dependence relations. American Sociological Review 27: 31–41.

Ewing, D.W. 1977. Freedom inside the organization . New York: Dutton.

Ewing, D.W. 1980. A proposed bill of rights. In Current issues in personnel management , ed. K.M. Rowland, M. London, G.R. Ferris, and J.L. Sherman, 94–99. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Ewing, D.W. 1983. Do it my way – or you’re fired! New York: Wiley.

Farrell, D. 1983. Exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect as response to job dissatisfaction: A multi-dimensional scaling study’. Academy of Management Journal 26: 596–607.

Farrell, D., and J.C. Petersen. 1982. Patterns of political behavior in organizations. Academy of Management Review 7: 403–412.

Gaines, J. 1980. Upward communication in industry: An experiment. Human Relations 33: 929–942.

Gamson, W.H. 1971. Political trust and its remifications. In Social psychology and political behavior , ed. G. Abcarian and J. Soule, 40–55. Columbus: Merrill.

Glausser, M.J. 1982. Factors which facilitate or impede upward communication in organizations. Presented at the 42nd annual meeting of the Academy of Management, New York, August, 1982.

Hacker, A. 1975. Loyalty – and the whistleblower. Across the Board 67: 4–8.

Heller, F. 1983. Changing autocracy patterns: A cultural perspective. Presented at the 43rd annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Dallas, August, 1983.

Hickson, D.J., C.R. Hinings, R.W. Lee, R.W. Schneck, and J.M. Pennings. 1971. A strategic contingencies’ theory of inter organizational power. Administrative Science Quarterly 16: 216–229.

Hirschman, A.O. 1970. Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hollinger, R.C., and J.P. Clark. 1982. Formal and informal social controls of employee deviance. The Sociological Quarterly 3: 333–343.

Jabin, F.M. 1982. Formal structure characteristics of organizations and superior/subordinate communication. Human Communication Research 8: 338–347.

Janis, I.L., and L. Mann. 1977. Decision making . New York: Free Press.

Johnson, J.M., and J.D. Douglas. 1978. Crime at the top: Deviance in business and the professions . Philadelphia: Lippincott.

Jones, A.P., L.R. James, and J.R. Bruni. 1975. Perceived leadership behavior and confidence in the leader as moderated by job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology 60: 146–149.

Kohlberg, L. 1969. Stages in the development of moral thought and action . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Kolarska, L., and J. Aldrich. 1980. Exit, voice, and silence: Consumers’ and managers’ responses to organizational decline. Organization Studies 1: 41–58.

Maier, N.E.F., R.L. Hoffman, and W.H. Read. 1963. Superior-subordinate communication: The relative effectiveness of managers who held their subordinates’ positions. Personnel Psychology 16: 1–11.

Malin, M.H. 1983. Protecting the whistle-blower from retaliatory discharge. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 16: 277–318.

Martin, J., P. Brickman, and A. Murray. 1983. Psychological and sociological barriers to collective action in organizations. Presented at the 43rd annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Dallas, August, 1983.

McKelvey, B., and H. Aldrich. 1983. Populations, natural selection and applied organizational science. Administrative Science Quarterly 28: 101–128.

Miceli, M.P., and J.P. Near. 1984. The relationships among beliefs, organizational position and whistle-blowing status: A discriminant analysis. Academy of Management Journal 27: 687–705.

Milgram, S. 1955. Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations 18: 57–75.

Nader, R., P.J. Petkas, and K. Blackwell (eds.). 1972. Whistle-blowing: The report on the conference on professional responsibility . New York: Grossman.

Near, J.P., and T.C. Jensen. 1983. The whistle-blowing process: Retaliation and perceived expectiveness. Work and Occupations 10: 3–28.

Near, J.P., M.A. Parmerlee, R.W. White, and T.C. Jensen. 1980. Effectiveness of sex discrimination complaints. Proceedings: Association for Women in Psychology. Los Angeles: CA.

Near, J.P., M.A. Parmerlee, R.W. White, and T.C. Jensen. 1981. Blowing the whistle on sex discrimination. A comparison of public and private organizations. Presented at the 41st annual meeting of the Academy of Management.

Near, J.P., M.P. Miceli, and T.C. Jensen. 1983. Variables associated with the whistle-blowing process. Working Paper 83–11, The Ohio State University, March, 1983.

O’Reilly, C.A. 1978. The intentional distortion of information in organizational communication: A laboratory and field investigation. Human Relations 31: 173–193.

Parmerlee, M.A., J.P. Near, and T.C. Jensen. 1982. Correlates of whistle-blowers’ perceptions of organizational retaliation. Administrative Science Quarterly 27: 17–34.

Perrucci, R., R.M. Anderson, D.E. Schendel, and L.E. Trachtman. 1980. Whistle-blowing: Professionals’ resistance to organizational authority. Social Problems 28: 149–164.

Peters, C., and T. Branch. 1972. Blowing the whistle: Dissent in the public interest, Washington Monthly , New York.

Pfeffer, J. 1981. Power in organizations . Marshfield: Pittman.

Pfeffer, J., and G.R. Salancik. 1978. The external control of organizations . New York: Harper and Row.

Porter, L.W., and R.M. Steers. 1973. Organizational, work, and personal factors in employee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin 80: 151–176.

Read, W.H. 1962. Upward communication in industrial hierarchies. Human Relations 15: 3–15.

Roberts, K.H., and C.A. O’Reilly. 1974. Failures in upward communication: Three possible culprits. Academy of Management Journal 17: 205–215.

Rotter, J.B. 1966. Generalized expectancies for interval vs. external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs 80: 1–28.

Skinner, B.F. 1953. Science and human behavior . New York: Macmillan.

Spector, P.E. 1982. Behavior in organizations as a function of employee’s locus of control. Psychological Bulletin 91: 482–497.

Staw, B.M., and E. Szwajkowski. 1975. The scarcity-munificence component of organizational environments and the commission of illegal acts. Administrative Science Quarterly 20: 345–354.

United States Merit Systems Protection Board (USMSPB). 1981. Whistle-blowing and the federal employee . Washington, D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Vroom, V.H. 1964. Work and motivation . New York: Wiley.

Weber, M. 1947. The theory of social and economic organization . New York: Free Press.

Weinstein, D. 1979. Bureaucratic opposition . New York: Pergamon Press.

Westin, A.F. (ed.). 1981. Whistleblowing . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

Janet P. Near

McDonough School of Business, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., USA

Marcia P. Miceli

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Janet P. Near .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

, Faculty of Arts, Brandon University, 18th Street 270, Brandon, R7A 6A9, Manitoba, Canada

Alex C. Michalos

Office of the President, Brandon University, 18th Street 270, Brandon, R7A 6A9, Manitoba, Canada

Deborah C. Poff

Additional information

The authors wish to thank H. Randolph Bobbitt and Jeffrey Ford for their comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Near, J.P., Miceli, M.P. (2013). Organizational Dissidence: The Case of Whistle-Blowing. In: Michalos, A., Poff, D. (eds) Citation Classics from the Journal of Business Ethics. Advances in Business Ethics Research, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4126-3_8

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4126-3_8

Published : 12 June 2012

Publisher Name : Springer, Dordrecht

Print ISBN : 978-94-007-4125-6

Online ISBN : 978-94-007-4126-3

eBook Packages : Business and Economics Business and Management (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Case Studies

People we've helped, filter our case studies by type of concern raised:.

• abuse of vulnerable person
• consumer breach
• exposure to dangerous substances
• financial mismanagement
• food safety
• furlough fraud
• incorrect reporting to client
• maladministration of medication
• misuse of funds
• patient safety
• social work
• unsafe equipment
• unsafe staffing levels
• work safety

When settlement is the preferred outcome

Helena* worked in the distribution factory of a well-known food company. She was an agency worker, so effectively worked for both her agency and the distribution factory as both played a role in determining the terms of her engagement. At work, Helena noticed a culture of racism including racist language being used by senior members of staff, as well as working practices which disadvantaged Muslim workers.

Side effects of speaking up as a social worker

Eleanor* was a social worker, whose work often brought her to her local hospital to support patients. Over time, she grew increasingly uneasy about the inadequate handling of patient safety, and decisions not being taken in the best interests of vulnerable people. She felt that a manager appeared to be discharging patients who weren’t ready to go home.

Reaching out to the regulator

During the course of his job, Oliver realised his company had hired someone who had previous convictions for a serious financial crime. Oliver had been made to do a DBS check when he joined so was shocked this person had been hired.

HSE take action following whistleblower’s safety concerns

Amal* works for a charity providing wellbeing services to vulnerable adults. She called Protect following a serious incident where a service user had physically threatened her. Amal explained that she had raised concerns previously about the charity’s building not being safe for workers following previous incidents. She told us her requests for securing the premises and implementing additional safety measures for staff had been ignored.

Standing Up for Standards: A Police Officer’s Struggle to Address Unqualified Police Trainers 

As a new recruit in the police force, Mary* was shocked to discover what was happening amongst police officers in her area. Mary knows that so-called “trainers” are responsible for teaching police officers how to do their job and issuing licenses to those who have completed their training. However, Mary came across compelling evidence suggesting that more than a hundred trainers themselves were unqualified and lacked oversight of who had completed their training.

Advice for Union Reps supporting migrant whistleblowers

Dentist reaches settlement after victimisation for whistleblowing, health and safety gone mad, the cost of victimisation, poor practice at the practice , charity worker raises furlough fraud concerns, blacklisted – or simply bad luck.

Georgia worked as an electrical engineer on a major transport project. She reported that electrical installations did not comply with health and safety standards. When no action was taken she resigned in frustration and the following year the contractors in question were replaced.

Supermarket worker speaks up about health and safety concerns

Graham (not his real name) worked in a managerial role at a supermarket and became concerned about the supermarket’s health and safety practices. He saw examples of staff working in unsafe conditions, with their own health and safety being disregarded. Food produce regulations were not being followed, such as frozen food being sold after it … Read more

Teacher speaks up over student safeguarding concerns

Food factory worker raises concerns over lack of covid-19 safety measures, accountant speaks up over construction company’s financial malpractice, furloughed restaurant employee had concerns over illegal working ignored, education worker bullied for raising health and safety concerns.

Mary (not their real name) worked at an independent school for children with special educational needs. She was only there only a short time when she started having a number of health and safety concerns about the school. Mary never received any appropriate health and safety training from the organisation, despite being designated the lead … Read more

Mental health worker speaks out over poor patient care

Gillian (not her real name) worked for the NHS for over 20 years. She worked with patients with acute mental illness. Gillian had concerns about poor patient care. This included poor communication, a failure to engage with vulnerable patients, nurses turning up to work late and leaving early, nurses falling asleep on shift, and low … Read more

Finance worker speaks up over fake charges to clients

Patrick worked as an adviser in the financial services industry. He was concerned that his employer had been breaching Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) regulations for a number of years. In particular, Patrick’s firm was charging clients for advice that it had not given and it assessed the performance of its employees by using targets that … Read more

Nurse speaks up over medicine maladministration at care home

Delia (not her real name) worked as a nurse at a care home. Delia witnessed numerous incidents regarding the maladministration of medicine. This included overstocking out of date medication and the administration of overdue and incorrect medication. She raised her concerns with her manager in the first instance, and escalated this to the care home … Read more

Food supplier fails to test food hygiene

Food producer exposes goods to contamination, food manufacturer sells out of date and illegal food, care workers help to stop abuse of vulnerable residents, whistleblower exposed to asbestos speaks up to regulator, unsafe food practices resolved by whistleblower speaking up, social worker speaks up about inappropriate relationship, fraud in family company puts whistleblower in difficult position, manager convicted for theft in care home, protect helps food sector whistleblower agree £100,000 settlement, fraud in charity stopped by whistleblowers, care worker thanked for raising patient safety concerns, our use of cookies.

Site Search

• How to Search
• Advisory Group
• Editorial Board
• OEC Fellows
• History and Funding
• Using OEC Materials
• Collections
• Research Ethics Resources
• Ethics Projects
• Communities of Practice
• Get Involved
• Submit Content
• Open Access Membership
• Become a Partner

Topics: Whistleblowing

A guide that provides information and resources on teaching responsible conduct of research that focuses on the topic of whistleblowing. Part of the Resources for Research Ethics Education collection.

What is Research Ethics

Why Teach Research Ethics

Animal Subjects

Biosecurity

Collaboration

Conflicts of Interest

Data Management

Human Subjects

Peer Review

Publication

Research Misconduct

Social Responsibility

Stem Cell Research

Whistleblowing

Descriptions of educational settings , including in the classroom, and in research contexts.

Case Studies

Other Discussion Tools

Information about the history and authors of the Resources for Research Ethics Collection

Someone who has witnessed misconduct has an unmistakable obligation to act. (NAS, 1995)

While this obligation might be met by formal reporting of the alleged misconduct, this is only one of many paths open to the potential whistleblower.

According to the 2010 definition from the US Office of Special Counsel, a whistleblower discloses information he or she reasonably believes evidences:

• a violation of a law, rule, or regulation
• gross mismanagement, gross waste of funds, or abuse of authority
• a substantial and specific danger to public health or public safety

Roles and Perspective

Whistleblower

The whistleblower should (Gunsalus, 2010; Keith-Spiegel, 2010):

• Keep good records
• Avoid the mistake of an inappropriate allegation, begin by asking questions and seeking perspective
• Appropriately report or respond to possible misconduct
• Not take responsibility for investigating the misconduct or mete out justice
• Maintain objectivity with a goal of identifying and correcting any possible misunderstandings

Even though he/she may feel threatened or offended by the accusation, the accused should:

• Properly document all necessary information
• Cooperate with any possible investigation

Necessity and Obligation

• Because of the secretive nature of many research environments, misconduct will only come to light if someone close to the project blows the whistle.
• sheer practicality
• protection of credit or intellectual property rights
• worries about the possible misuse of preliminary data

Consequences

• Both whistleblowers and those accused may suffer whether or not the allegations are ultimately sustained.
• As with good research, the integrity of an allegation of research misconduct is best served by keeping clear, defensible records of what happened and when.

The National Science Foundation states that: Whistleblower disclosures save lives as well as taxpayer dollars. They play a critical role in keeping our government honest, efficient and accountable. Recognizing that whistleblowers root out waste, fraud and abuse, and protect public health and safety, federal laws strongly encourage employees to disclose wrongdoing. Federal laws also protect whistleblowers from retaliation.

Why be a Whistleblower?

There is a considerable range of opinions among scientists about how to respond to perceived misconduct -- and an even greater difference between scientists and administrators (Wenger et al., 1999). Yet, as a 1995 publication of the National Academy of Sciences advises:

Someone who has witnessed misconduct has an unmistakable obligation to act.

In addition to this proposed obligation, other reasons to favor whistleblowing include:

• Personal sense of responsibility
• Protect against the risk of wasted resources
• Clarify something that may either not in fact be wrong or is easily remedied
• Decrease the risk that someone else will uncover the misconduct and questions will be asked about why you didn't say anything

Examples of Whistleblowing

Consequences for whistleblowers.

Unfortunately, the evidence is compelling that whistleblowers, not just the accused, suffer adverse consequences. Based on self-reports (Research Triangle Institute, 1995):

• Being pressured to withdraw their allegation
• Being ostracized by colleagues
• Suffering a reduction in research support, or
• Being threatened with a lawsuit.
• Approximately 10% noted significant negative consequences, such as being fired or losing support.
• However, fewer than 18% of those suffering the most severe impact on their careers reported that they would be unwilling to come forward with allegations again.

This potential for adverse consequences makes it problematic to place an obligation for whistleblowing on scientists in training, such as postdocs, graduate students, or undergraduate students.

How Should I Report Misconduct?

Because of the serious consequences of an allegation of misconduct, it is important to be clear about the allegation. This concern is particularly relevant for someone with relatively little experience in research or in a specific area of research. To avoid the mistake of an inappropriate allegation:

• More senior members of the research group
• Someone in an ombuds program, or
• Even the individual whose conduct is in question.
• Clearly distinguish between facts and speculation in presenting an allegation and supporting documentation.
• Avoid the trap of inferring motives on the part of others.
• Instead, stick to the facts of the case, which will reduce the risk of a loss of credibility.

These considerations do not diminish the need for whistleblowing.

Regulations and Guidelines

Scope of regulations.

To foster fair and timely responses to allegations of research misconduct, regulations typically include:

• safeguards for informants and for the subjects of allegations
• an expectation of objectivity and expertise
• adherence to reasonable time limits , and
• respect for confidentiality .

Whistleblowers are protected under rulings from both state and federal governments.

Legal Protections

Whistleblowers are entitled to a number of legal protections. The first amendment to the Constitution, guarantees free speech, giving whistleblowers legal protection from retaliation. The federal False Claims Act is more far-reaching (US Code, 1986):

• Originally developed to protect the federal government from fraudulent contractors during the Civil War, the Act provides that any individual with primary knowledge of fraudulent use of federal funds can bring charges.
• If a defendant in a False Claims case is found liable, then the whistleblower can be awarded 15-30% of the resulting settlement.
• The False Claims Act also specifically calls for significant remedies for any discriminatory action that can be shown to have been taken to retaliate against an employee who has presented a case under the Act.

Current federal policies to protect whistleblowers from retaliation are covered, in part, by:

• Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989
• Department of Health and Human Services (2000)

educate agency employees about prohibitions on retaliation for whistleblowing, as well as employees' rights and remedies if subjected to retaliation for making a protected disclosure.

The regulations are intended to place obligations on institutions both to prevent and to remedy retaliation against whistleblowers. In addition to federal regulations:

• Most states and/or institutions typically have specific protections for whistleblowers.
• Most institutions, and many professional societies and journals, offer guidelines to support the role of the whistleblower.

Guidelines can have as much or more important than the regulations in reducing the chance of adverse outcomes.

Case Study 1

Dr. Carlos Gonzalez is a well-known investigator at the peak of his career. He has a reputation for being brilliant, demanding, and intensely competitive. The university values him greatly and he receives offers to move to highly attractive positions elsewhere on a regular basis. His laboratory publishes on average 30 papers a year and he is always included as author. One of Dr. Gonzalez's first-year postdocs, Dr. Grace Hung, comes to him and says that a very important result recently published by his laboratory in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science was fraudulent. This paper has already received considerable attention. Dr. Hung says the principal author, Dr. Edward Lansing, made up most of the data because a key assay was not working. This was discovered, she noted, when she tried to utilize the assay. Dr. Lansing has worked with Dr. Gonzalez for five years. The two have published several papers together and have become personal friends. Dr. Gonzalez hardly knows Dr. Hung. Questions: 1. How should Dr. Gonzalez respond to this complaint? How should he deal with:     a) Dr. Hung?     b) Dr. Lansing?     c) the data that have now been called into question?     d) the institution in which all three individuals work?     e) the journal in which the possibly fraudulent data were reported? 2. Assume Dr. Gonzalez is unresponsive to Dr. Hung's complaint. How might Dr. Hung follow up on her concerns? 3. Assume that Dr. Gonzalez proceeds by asking Dr. Lansing obliquely about the assay used for the project, mentioning that Dr. Hung seems to have some kind of problem with it. In spite of Dr. Gonzalez's subtlety, Dr. Lansing suspects that this inexperienced postdoc has planted some serious suspicions in Dr. Gonzalez's mind. Since Dr. Lansing is confident of the accuracy of his work, how should he respond to Dr. Gonzalez? Should Dr. Lansing approach Dr. Hung, and if so, what should he say to her?

Case Study 2

Dr. Alice Charles, a mid-career scientist, was revising and updating a book chapter. This led her to review other articles on the same subject to help determine what new material to cover. During the course of her reading, she came upon a chapter in a major text by Dr. Chris Long, a departmental chair at a leading medical school, that contained long passages from her previous chapter without attribution. Dr. Charles called Dr. Long and confronted him with her finding. At first, he vehemently denied having used any of Dr. Charles's text inappropriately. Dr. Charles then faxed Dr. Long copies of the offending passages. After some delay, Dr. Long finally responded, acknowledging that the language was indeed remarkably similar. Dr. Long noted that he had engaged younger members of his research group to write portions of the chapter because he was very busy at the time that the deadline was approaching. Furthermore, to defend himself, he pointed out that much of the original research on which her chapter was based was derived from the work of his laboratory. He admitted only to negligence in not adequately monitoring the activities of his subordinates. Dr. Charles replied that the subordinates were not acknowledged in Dr. Long's chapter either, and that admission of plagiarism required more than an apology. She indicated her intention to report the matter to Dr. Long's dean and the editor of the text. Questions: 1. Did Dr. Charles act appropriately? Would you have done anything differently? Considering the difference in status between herself and Dr. Long, was she taking a professional risk? 2. Did Dr. Long do anything wrong? What if he were copying his own previous writings? 3. How would you have handled this matter if you were Dr. Long and were confronted with Dr. Charles's revelations? 4. If you were Dr. Long's dean, how would you handle Dr. Charles's letter, which contained copies of the plagiarized texts? 5. Upon hearing Dr. Charles's complaint, what would you do as editor of Dr. Long's textbook? 6. In the context of proper credit for the writings of colleagues, who is responsible for what is published and what should be done if plagiarism is discovered?

Case Study 3

What would you do if you inadvertently discovered evidence that the head of your research group had been discarding data points, apparently to make the results of recent experiments (or studies) look better than they actually were?

Discussion Questions

• List at least three reasons that the integrity of science is dependent in part on whistleblowing.
• Describe the relative advantages and disadvantages for an individual who makes an allegation of research misconduct.
• List at least three steps a potential whistleblower can take to decrease the likelihood of adverse consequences.
• As a student, should I discard data that does not showcase the point I am trying to make?
• As a professor, if my student’s results seems too good to be true, should I ask them to show me their raw data? What if the results are from a fellow professor?
• OEC Whistleblowing Subject Aid A beginning point for anyone interested in learning more about whistleblowing, including relevant guidelines and good articles and readings to start out. 
• OEC Whistleblowing Bibliography A bibliography of books, online resources, and articles on whistleblowing

Cited Sources

• Department of Health and Human Services (2000): Public Health Service Standards for the Protection of Research Misconduct Whistleblowers. Notice of proposed rulemaking. Federal Register November 28, 2000 65(229):70830-70841. http://ori.hhs.gov/misconduct/nprm_reg.shtml
• Gleick E (1996): Tobacco blues; the tobacco industry has never lost a lawsuit; but a new billion-dollar legal assault, and a high-ranking defector, may change that. Time 147(11): 54 (5 pages). http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,984241,00.html
• Gunsalus CK (2010): How to blow the whistle and have a career afterwards . 
• Holden C (1987): NIMH Finds A Case of Serious Misconduct. Science 235:1566-1567. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/235/4796/1566
• Keith-Spiegel P et al. (2010): Responding to research wrongdoing: A user-friendly guide.
• Kell J (2015): Here's who figured out Volkswagen was cheating on emissions tests. Fortune Magazine. http://fortune.com/2015/09/21/volkswagen-emissions-testing-golf .
• Kevles DJ (2000): The Baltimore Case: A Trial of Politics, Science, and Character. W.W. Norton & Company. Reviewed at: https://www.nytimes.com/books/98/09/20/reviews/980920.20portert.html
• National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine (2009): On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research. National Academy Press.  https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12192/on-being-a-scientist-a-guide-to-responsible-conduct-in
• National Science Foundation: Whistleblower Protection https://www.nsf.gov/oig/whistleblower.jsp
• Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident (1986): Report to the President. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. http://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/genindex.htm
• Research Triangle Institute (1995): Consequences of whistleblowing for the whistleblower in misconduct in science cases. Report submitted to Office of Research Integrity. http://ori.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/final.pdf
• US Code (1986): False Claims Amendments Act of 1986. 31 USC Sections 3729-3733.  https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/civil/legacy/2011/04/22/C-FRAUDS_FCA_Primer.pdf
• US Office of Special Counsel. https://osc.gov/Resources/post_wb.pdf
• Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989.  https://www.congress.gov/bill/101st-congress/senate-bill/20/text
• Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ199/pdf/PLAW-112publ199.pdf

The Resources for Research Ethics Education site was originally developed and maintained by Dr. Michael Kalichman, Director of the Research Ethics Program at the University of California San Diego. The site was transferred to the Online Ethics Center in 2021 with the permission of the author.

Related Resources

Submit Content to the OEC   Donate

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Award No. 2055332. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Boeing hit with 32 whistleblower claims, as dead worker’s case reviewed

US workplace safety regulator received the complaints of employer retaliation over a three-year period.

Boeing has been the subject of 32 whistleblower complaints with the workplace safety regulator in the United States during the past three years, newly obtained documents reveal, amid mounting scrutiny of standards at the beleaguered aircraft maker.

The figures shed light on the extent of alleged retaliation by Boeing against whistleblowers as the Virginia-based company is facing mounting questions over its safety record and standards.

Keep reading

Is political unity in somalia achievable, poland arrests man over suspected plan to kill zelenskyy, how do muslims in india feel about the election, full jury panel seated on third day of trump’s new york hush-money trial.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which handles claims of retaliation against workers who blow the whistle on their employer, received the complaints of retaliation between December 2020 and March of this year, according to a table of figures compiled last month by officials at the agency.

The documents, obtained exclusively by Al Jazeera via a freedom of information request, do not provide details of the alleged workplace violations or alleged retaliation by Boeing in each case.

However, 13 of the complaints were filed under a statute that protects whistleblowing related to aviation safety, specifically.

Fifteen of the complaints were filed under a statute related to workplace safety, two were filed under the category of fraud, and one related to the control of toxic chemicals.

Apart from monetary restitution being awarded in two cases, all of the complaints where an outcome was specified were closed without the agency taking action, according to the figures.

The most common reason for OSHA closing a complaint, cited in seven cases, was the whistleblower failing to make a report within the specified timeframe, which ranges from 30 to 180 days.

Among other reasons for finalising a case with no action, OSHA also cited lack of jurisdiction and lack of cooperation from the complainant.

Five cases were still being investigated or pending assignment.

The list of complaints is not necessarily exhaustive, as there is a range of US agencies that handle whistleblower complaints related to aviation, including the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).

The documents also show that OSHA launched a review of the case of John Barnett, a former Boeing employee and whistleblower, after he was found dead last month from a suspected self-inflicted gunshot wound .

At the time of his death, Barnett was appealing OSHA’s dismissal of a 2017 whistleblower complaint with a higher adjudication body.

In an email sent on March 26, OSHA’s chief of staff, Emily Hargrove, told a colleague that the agency’s public affairs team were “asking that we review the decision back in 2017 to dismiss the case”.

“Jesse [Lawder, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Public Affairs] indicated the reasoning was because there wasn’t evidence that there was a violation of the underlying laws. Can we get a summary of that decision. He also is asking how often cases are dismissed based on that rationale. They also are asking if we made any safety and health issue referrals to FAA out of this complaint,” Hargrove wrote.

The outcome of OSHA’s review of the case is not referenced in the documents and remains unclear.

OSHA did not respond to requests for comment.

Boeing said that safety was a “top priority” for both its workers and passengers on its aircraft.

“For more than a decade, Boeing has had a safety initiative called Go4Zero that aims to eliminate all workplace injuries. Over that time, we’ve reduced serious injuries by 26 percent and recordable injuries by 62 percent, and we continue to make progress,” a spokesperson said in a statement.

“Boeing takes seriously all complaints from employees, including those made to OSHA related to workplace safety. We cooperate with OSHA to respond to and address all issues, and we continue to encourage all Boeing employees to raise safety concerns. Boeing does not tolerate, and our rules prohibit, retaliation of any kind.”

The revelations come as the public testimony of a number of current and former Boeing employees is refocusing attention on the aircraft manufacturer’s allegedly hostile environment for whistleblowers and lax safety standards.

At a US Senate committee hearing on Wednesday, Boeing engineer Sam Salehpour testified that he had been threatened for raising concerns about gaps between key sections of the 787 Dreamliner.

“They are putting out defective airplanes,” Salephour said. “I have serious concerns about the safety of the 787 and 777 aircraft, and I’m willing to take on professional risk to talk about them.”

Another witness, Ed Pierson, a former Boeing engineer, accused the company of a “criminal cover-up” in the investigation of the midair blowout of a Boeing 737 Max 9 in January that prompted regulators to put a cap on the manufacturer’s production.

Before Wednesday’s hearing, Boeing denied there being issues with the structural integrity of its planes, saying that the 787 and 777 fleets had safely transported billions of passengers around the world during their time in service.

Upholding integrity: Whistleblowing and the finance function

In financial services, integrity and transparency are pillars of trust. Yet, amid the complex web of transactions and operations, the potential for misconduct looms large. Whistleblowing is, therefore, a critical mechanism in safeguarding financial systems and ensuring accountability and ethical conduct. Santiago Bedoya-Pardo writes

Whistleblowing, enshrined in legislation such as the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA) in the UK, empowers individuals to report wrongdoing within organisations.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) in the UK bolster this framework with additional rules and guidance, underscoring the paramount importance of openness and transparency in financial institutions.

The surge in whistleblower reports to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), as evidenced by a 47% increase in the past year, reflects the growing vigilance against fraudulent activities, particularly concerning government assistance schemes during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Such reports serve as testament to the evolving role of whistleblowing in exposing financial malpractice and ensuring accountability.

Internationally, jurisdictions such as Hong Kong have adapted whistleblowing policies to align with heightened public scrutiny. The Financial Reporting Council (FRC)’s updated policy underscores the commitment to protecting whistleblowers’ identities, thereby fostering confidence in reporting financial misconduct.

As whistleblowers emerge as crucial sources of intelligence, financial regulators and professional bodies emphasise the need to cultivate a culture of openness and accountability. Recognising whistleblowers as individuals with insider knowledge, the FRC and HMRC, among others, strive to streamline reporting channels and ensure robust protection against retaliation.

Legal and regulatory framework

When examining the financial services sector, it is key to take into account that the framework governing whistleblowing plays a key role in shaping how different organisations conduct themselves and how they approach accountability.

As mentioned, it is therefore vital to take into account the influence played by PIDA, together with the work conducted by regulatory bodies such as the FCA and PRA.

Under the FCA rules, financial services firms are mandated to have robust whistleblowing policies in place, outlining procedures for disclosure and ensuring whistleblower protection. Such policies must be communicated to all employees, with training provided to facilitate understanding and compliance. Additionally, mechanisms for anonymous disclosures are required, along with procedures for investigating reported concerns.

Similarly, the PRA’s rules on whistleblowing, outlined in the PRA Rulebook, impose obligations on firms to implement whistleblowing policies and procedures. While the PRA does not mandate the appointment of a whistleblower’s champion, it underscores the importance of designating individuals or teams responsible for whistleblowing arrangements within firms. The efforts conducted by international entities, such as Hong Kong’s FRC, have further displayed how confidentiality may be enhanced and how access to reporting channels may be streamlined by regulatory bodies.

The practical considerations of whistleblowing

While legislative and regulatory frameworks provide essential protections for whistleblowers, the decision to report misconduct within the financial services sector is often fraught with practical challenges and considerations. Whistleblowers may face a myriad of obstacles, ranging from concerns about retaliation to navigating complex internal reporting channels.

One of the primary concerns for whistleblowers is the fear of retaliation or victimisation by their employers or colleagues.

Research conducted by Protect, the whistleblowers’ charity, revealed that a significant proportion of whistleblowers reported experiencing victimisation, with many facing dismissal, demotion, or harassment as a result of their disclosures. This can deter individuals from coming forward with concerns, undermining the effectiveness of whistleblowing mechanisms.

Navigating internal reporting channels can also present challenges for whistleblowers. While legislation such as the PIDA mandates protections for whistleblowers, the practical implementation of these protections within organisations can vary. Whistleblowers may encounter resistance or indifference from management when raising concerns internally, leading to frustration and disillusionment.

Furthermore, the decision to blow the whistle can have significant personal and professional repercussions for individuals. Whistleblowers may face being ostracised by colleagues, damage to their professional reputations, and even difficulties finding future employment. The case of the Sydney-based banker at UBS, who allegedly faced retaliation and reprimand after reporting bullying and abusive behaviour, serves as a stark reminder of the risks whistleblowers may face.

For organisations, effectively managing whistleblower reports poses its own set of challenges. Ensuring confidentiality and protecting whistleblowers from retaliation are paramount, yet striking the right balance between transparency and discretion can be delicate. Moreover, conducting thorough and impartial investigations into reported concerns requires significant resources and expertise.

Despite these challenges, fostering a supportive culture that encourages whistleblowing and values integrity is essential for financial institutions. Providing clear reporting channels, offering support and protection to whistleblowers, and conducting prompt and thorough investigations can help build trust and confidence in the whistleblowing process.

The impact on organisational culture and reputation

Whistleblowing incidents have historically had major implications for organisational culture and reputation within the financial services sector. The manner in which organisations respond to whistleblowing disclosures can significantly shape perceptions among stakeholders, influencing trust, credibility, and long-term viability.

A key challenge organisations face in managing whistleblowing incidents is preserving trust and confidence among clients, investors and the public. Instances of financial misconduct exposed through whistleblowing can erode trust in the integrity and reliability of financial institutions, potentially leading to reputational damage and loss of business. The surge in whistleblower reports to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), particularly in response to fraud related to government assistance schemes during the Covid-19 pandemic, underscores the critical importance of effectively managing whistleblowing incidents to safeguard organisational reputation.

Moreover, the manner in which organisations handle whistleblowing disclosures can have a profound impact on internal culture and employee morale. Instances of whistleblowers facing victimisation or retaliation can undermine trust and confidence in organisational leadership, fostering a culture of fear and silence. Conversely, organisations that demonstrate a commitment to transparency, accountability, and ethical conduct can cultivate a positive workplace culture where employees feel empowered to speak up about misconduct without fear of reprisal.

In cases where whistleblowing disclosures result in investigations and regulatory actions, organisations may face significant reputational fallout. Media coverage of high-profile whistleblowing cases, such as the UBS banker who reported bullying and abusive behaviour, can tarnish an organisation’s reputation and credibility, leading to public scrutiny and loss of goodwill. The importance of proactive reputation management and crisis communication strategies cannot be overstated in mitigating the impact of whistleblowing incidents on organisational reputation.

Despite the potential challenges and reputational risks associated with whistleblowing incidents, organisations have an opportunity to demonstrate integrity, accountability, and a commitment to ethical conduct through their responses. By fostering a culture of openness, transparency, and support for whistleblowers, organisations can enhance their reputation as trustworthy and responsible stewards of financial resources.

In the following section, we will explore strategies and best practices for organisations to effectively manage whistleblowing incidents and mitigate the impact on organisational culture and reputation within the financial services sector.

Strategies for effective management of whistleblowing incidents

In navigating the complexities of whistleblowing incidents within the financial services sector, organisations can benefit from adopting proactive strategies informed by research and best practices. Drawing  from insights provided by a 2020 study conducted by the whistleblower charity group Protect, several key approaches emerge as integral to the effective management of whistleblowing incidents. According to the study, these were:

• Establishing clear policies and procedures. Comprehensive whistleblowing policies and procedures serve as foundational elements in facilitating the reporting of concerns within organisations. These frameworks should delineate the process for making disclosures, ensuring confidentiality and anonymity where required, and guiding the steps for conducting thorough investigations into reported concerns.
• Providing support and resources: Research underscores the importance of providing adequate support and resources to whistleblowers throughout the reporting process. This includes offering training and guidance to employees on their rights and responsibilities regarding whistleblowing, as well as access to counselling and legal assistance to address any concerns or fears they may encounter.
• Promoting a culture of openness and accountability: Organisations that cultivate a culture of openness, transparency, and accountability are better positioned to effectively manage whistleblowing incidents. Encouraging employees to speak up about misconduct without fear of reprisal and fostering an environment where concerns are taken seriously can help create a supportive ecosystem for whistleblowers.
• Ensuring prompt and thorough investigations: Timely and impartial investigations into reported concerns are essential for addressing wrongdoing and maintaining trust within organisations. Establishing clear protocols for investigating whistleblowing disclosures, including gathering evidence, interviewing relevant parties, and implementing appropriate remedial actions, can help ensure a fair and equitable process for all parties involved.
• Engaging senior leadership: Research suggests that the involvement of senior leadership is instrumental in promoting a culture of accountability and ethical conduct within organisations. Senior leaders should lead by example, demonstrating a commitment to integrity and ethical behaviour, and actively championing whistleblowing initiatives to instil confidence in the reporting process.
• Regular review and enhancement of policies: Continuous review and enhancement of whistleblowing policies and procedures are essential to adapt to evolving regulatory requirements and organisational needs. Soliciting feedback from employees and stakeholders and conducting periodic audits of whistleblowing mechanisms can help identify areas for improvement and ensure ongoing effectiveness.

By embracing these research-driven strategies, as advocated by the 2020 Protect study, financial institutions can enhance their ability to effectively manage whistleblowing incidents, uphold integrity and transparency, and mitigate potential risks to organisational reputation and credibility. In the subsequent sections, we will explore real-world case studies and examples that illustrate the application of these strategies in practice within the financial services sector.

Whistleblowing plays a crucial role in promoting integrity, transparency and accountability within the financial services sector. From the legal frameworks outlined in legislation such as the PIDA to the practical challenges faced by whistleblowers and organisations alike, this exploration has shed light on the multifaceted nature of whistleblowing in the modern financial landscape.

As whistleblowing reports to regulatory bodies surge and organisations grapple with the complexities of managing disclosures, it becomes increasingly clear that proactive strategies and best practices are essential. By fostering a culture that supports whistleblowers, implementing robust policies and procedures, and engaging senior leadership, financial institutions can navigate whistleblowing incidents effectively while upholding their commitment to ethical conduct and responsible stewardship.

Ultimately, by embracing the principles of transparency, accountability, and integrity, the financial services sector can continue to build trust and confidence among stakeholders, safeguarding the integrity of the industry as a whole.

"Upholding integrity:  Whistleblowing and the finance function" was originally created and published by The Accountant , a GlobalData owned brand.

The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Hailed as a hero and then sacked: the carer’s allowance whistleblower

Enrico La Rocca helped expose profound failures but less than a year later was dismissed by the DWP – and then later rehired

• Sunak under pressure to grant carers amnesty

A lmost exactly five years ago, Enrico La Rocca was hailed by MPs as a hero, a whistleblower whose tenacity had helped expose profound failures at the heart of the government’s vast benefits agency, resulting in tens of thousands of vulnerable unpaid carers being unfairly fined and prosecuted.

Without La Rocca – who was not named at the time – serious problems with carer’s allowance overpayments may never have come to light, the Commons work and pensions select committee concluded: without him the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) would never have been persuaded of the “urgent need to act”.

Yet less than a year later the DWP sacked him, the Guardian can reveal – just months after its permanent secretary, Peter Schofield, had assured MPs that La Rocca – an experienced civil servant in the carer’s allowance unit – would be “absolutely” protected for speaking out.

The DWP’s extraordinary treatment of the carer’s allowance whistleblower emerges as ministers face growing scrutiny over their continuing failure to fix those same administrative failings – and growing outrage that five years after the DWP promised to fix carers allowance overpayments very little has changed.

Thousands of carers are still falling foul of the system, incurring debts, ill health, and in some cases a criminal record. MPs and charities this week queued up to call for reform of the carer’s allowance , as carers themselves told harrowing stories of injustices and hardship inflicted on their families by the DWP.

La Rocca was dismissed in May 2020 just as the Covid pandemic was hitting and the DWP was scrambling to mobilise staff to process a sudden avalanche of universal credit claims. At the same time, the carer’s allowance problems quickly fell off the DWP’s agenda, where they have arguably remained.

For years he had raised his concerns about carer’s allowance with his line managers, and through briefings for his trade union, the PCS. His insights were not welcomed, union sources say. By 2018, frustrated that carers were being unfairly prosecuted and fined, he wrote to the then welfare minister, Sarah Newton.

A union official with knowledge of the case said: “Enrico had tried to raise these issues through internal DWP channels, but he hit a brick wall.” La Rocca then wrote with his concerns to the National Audit Office (NAO), and Frank Field, then the chair of the work and pensions select committee.

Field wrote to the NAO in November 2018 asking it to investigate. It was “truly shocking” he wrote, that carers were bearing the brunt of “eye-wateringly large overpayments” as high as £48,000 as a result of “systemic failings or gross incompetence” on the part of the DWP.

La Rocca had warned staffing shortages meant the DWP was failing to properly manage data matching alerts it received identifying potential breaches of carer’s allowance earnings limits. As a result, thousands of carers who worked part-time on top of receiving carer’s allowance inadvertently earned more than they were allowed to, often by just a few pounds.

The subsequent NAO inquiry report in April 2019 found that between 2016 and 2018 the DWP was checking just 12% of earnings breaches. It found two-thirds of carers hit with earnings-related overpayments of more than £2,500 during this time could have avoided running up these huge debts had the unit been staffed adequately.

Field, a veteran poverty campaigner who died this week , was palpably shocked by the overpayments, later accusing the DWP of “shocking ineptitude” . But he lost his seat in the December 2019 general election, the committee was suspended during the pandemic, and political – and arguably DWP interest – in the carer’s allowance waned.

La Rocca, meanwhile, was in trouble after his managers discovered he had written privately to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). It is understood he had asked the CPS to ensure the NAO report was made available to the judge in carer’s allowance fraud prosecution cases, to enable the full context of overpayments to be understood.

He had previously raised concerns internally that carers were being unjustly prosecuted for fraud in cases where avoidable DWP administrative failures had meant the overpayments were not spotted early. A key criterion for the DWP referring carers to the CPS is the overpayment owed is more than £5,000.

His union at the time argued unsuccessfully that La Rocca’s actions in writing to the CPS were “part of ongoing whistleblowing action to seek to address a clear and legitimate concern, and that he should have been provided with whistleblower protection and not dismissed”. La Rocca was suspended in February 2020 and dismissed for gross misconduct in May, losing his appeal in June.

The story did not end there. After being shown the door, La Rocca wrote to the chair of the work and pensions select committee, Stephen Timms, to explain what had happened. Timms made representations to ministers to complain. La Rocca’s case was also taken up by the whistleblowing charity Protect. In April 2021 he was reinstated and is understood to be working in another section.

La Rocca declined to comment on his sacking when approached by the Guardian. A DWP spokesperson said it did not comment on staffing matters. They said the DWP was “committed to fairness in the welfare system, with safeguards in place for managing repayments, while protecting the public purse”.

Meanwhile, the overpayments scandal continues. The DWP introduced an automated data-matching system in 2018 . By 2023 – the latest figures available – it was checking just 46% of potential earnings breach alerts each month. Last year, there were 34,000 overpayments cases – one in five of carer’s allowance claimants who worked part-time on top of their caring duties – a total that has barely shifted in five years.

One source close to the PCS said La Rocca should never have been sacked: “As the MPs’ praise suggests, he was clearly doing a public service. If he hadn’t been, then why did he get his job back?”

• Civil service
• Social care

Most viewed

Case Studies

Search Case Studies

All Areas of Concern

Whistle–Blowing

Howard joined a publicly listed company recently as a senior internal audit manager.

One day, Howard received an anonymous letter alleging a possible fraud in the company.  Following his diligent investigation, there was evidence showing some wrongdoings of Mr Szeto, the Purchasing Director and a close relative of the Managing Director.  The malpractices included operating bogus companies to supply materials to the listed company, accepting secret commissions in awarding contracts to selected suppliers and claiming private expenses through the company's accounts.

He presented his findings to the Managing Director and expected appreciation for his work and management’s follow-up on the misconduct and malpractices committed by Mr Szeto.  However, the response of the Managing Director was totally unexpected.

The Managing Director "accused" Howard of being over-zealous in the case.  He said that Mr Szeto was a respected senior member of staff in the company.  The evidence was also questioned in minute detail and the variations were described as minor.  Finally, the Managing Director advised Howard to stay away from the case.

How should Howard react?

Case Analysis

It is evident that Howard had received an unsatisfactory answer from the Managing Director.  Assuming his findings were accurate, he should present a report to the other directors of the company, setting out the details of his findings of the wrongdoings of Mr Szeto, the Purchasing Manager.

Mr Szeto might have committed offences under Section 9(3) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordnance (POBO) for using false procurement documents to deceive the company and claiming private expenses through company’s accounts. He might have also breached Section 9 of the POBO for accepting secret commissions from suppliers without the approval from the company. 

If the board did not take appropriate action to follow up on the case, Howard should consider reporting the matter to the appropriate authorities after seeking legal advice.  While maintaining confidentiality of company matters was an important consideration, Howard had to weigh this consideration against the public interest in disclosing such matters to the appropriate authorities.

Howard might consider resigning from the company in the worst case scenario that he no longer had confidence in the integrity of those charged with governance of the company.

E-News Subscription

Email Address

Verification