[ad_1]
Facebook recently took a tougher stance against the whistleblower Frances Haugensuggests that the social network may consider legal retaliation from now on Haugen went public with internal research he copied before leaving him job earlier this year.
US law protects whistleblowers who disclose information about potential fraud to the government. However, this protection does not cover the release of company secrets to the media.
Facebook still have to walk a fine line. The company has to weigh up whether to sue HaugenIt’s worth presenting as a legitimate Godzilla willing to crush any woman who says he is, who might deter other employees who might otherwise raise his voice. hejust doing the right thing.
Haugen may encounter other consequences. Whistleblowers often put themselves at risk of professional harm – other firms may be reluctant to hire them in the future – and personal attacks from being in the public eye.
Facebook did not respond to questions sent by email.
WHAT DID HAUGEN DO?
Haugen secretly copied an inner treasure Facebook documents owned before and after leaving the company him lawyers file a complaint with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Facebook hides what he knows about the negative effects of his platform.
His lawyer, John Tye, said the team gave the redacted documents to Congress. Haugen He testified on Tuesday and also briefed authorities in California. Haugen He also shared the documents with the Wall Street Journal. he He started speaking in December and sparked a series of explosive stories that began in mid-September.
WHAT WAS IT FACEBOOKREPLY?
The company says it was misidentified. “I think most of us don’t recognize the wrong picture of the company being painted,” CEO Mark Zuckerberg told employees on Tuesday.
Some company officials have also started using harsher language to describe them. Haugenactions that can be interpreted as threats.
In an Associated Press interview Thursday, Facebook manager Monika Bickert repeatedly referred to the documents Haugen a word copied as “stolen” he It has also been used in other media interviews. Kohn, Kohn and Colapinto’s attorney, who specializes in whistleblower cases, said the language was threatening.
Asked in the same interview Facebook would sue or retaliate against the whistleblower, Bickert simply said, “I can’t answer that.”
A week ago, Antigone Davis, Facebook‘ head of global security testifies in Senate Facebook “She would never retaliate against someone for speaking to Congress,” which left open the possibility of the company going after it for giving the document to the magazine.
IS HAUGEN PROTECTED?
Various laws provide protection to whistleblowers at both the state and federal levels. federal laws applicable to Haugen The Dodd-Frank Act, the 2010 Wall Street reform act, and the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, which followed the collapse of Enron and other accounting scandals.
Dodd-Frank expanded protections for whistleblowers and gave the SEC the power to take action against a company that threatened a whistleblower. Experts say there are protections for both employees and ex-employees.
He was asked about his risk because he went to the media, Haugen‘s attorney, Tye, argues this because Haugen went to the SEC, Congress, and state officials, heis entitled to whistleblower protection. he said any suit Facebook would be “meaningless” and that Facebook there has been no contact.
WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE MEDIA LEAKS?
The courts have not tested whether media leaks are protected under Dodd-Frank, but Colapinto said the U.S. Secretary of Labor determined decades ago that environmental and nuclear safety whistleblowers’ communications with the media were protected. argues that Sarbanes-Oxley’s language is modeled after earlier statutes, and Haugen should have the same protection for any of them. him communication with reporters.
Facebook can claim that Haugen free him Confidentiality agreement by sharing company documents with the press, leaking trade secrets, or simply commenting Facebook Lisa Banks of Katz, Marshall and Banks, who has worked on whistleblower cases for decades, considers it libelous. “Like many whistleblowers, he is extraordinarily brave and puts himself at personal and professional risk to shine a light on these practices,” he said.
Haugen He effectively used media leaks to increase pressure on Congress and government regulators. Colapinto said his remarks had a public interest purpose that could complicate the enforcement of the NDA in the following situations. Facebook chose to do so.
CAN FACEBOOK FACE BACK?
Facebook possibly wanting his veiled threats to piss off other employees or ex-employees who might be inclined to talk. “If they go after him, it’s not because they think they have a strong legal case, but because they’re sending a message to other potential informants that they intend to play hard,” Banks said.
But he said it would be a “disaster”. Facebook then go Haugen. Regardless of possible legal vulnerabilities, Facebook If he has brought a legal case against you, he may appear to be a bully. him.
“The last thing Facebook What we need is to arouse the anger of government officials and the public at large by playing the big bad giant corporation against brave individual whistleblowers,” said Neil Getnick, who represents Getnick and the Getnick firm whistleblowers.
[ad_2]
Source link