Women and Whistleblowing: Exploring Gender Effects in Policy Design

Claire Tilton
{"title":"Women and Whistleblowing: Exploring Gender Effects in Policy Design","authors":"Claire Tilton","doi":"10.7916/D8PC4JHW","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Laws that incentivize employees to blow the whistle when they perceive a financial risk and protect them from retaliation have sharply increased in popularity and have even become commonplace at the state level for fraud related to government money. DoddFrank codified a similar kind of protection for whistleblowers who report private-sector fraud. This Note suggests that states, especially New York, have an opportunity to propose new financial fraud whistleblower legislation in response to the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce the federal government’s active regulatory role in the financial sector. However, the prevalence and potential of such legislation should inspire a closer look at how legal mechanisms target and encourage participation across the employee population. Any program that seeks to encourage participation within an existing context, such as the financial services workplace, risks entrenching bias and inequality if it fails to consider the differential effects of its design across different demographics. This Note therefore addresses whistleblower laws’ implications for women employees’ participation in whistleblowing when they observe financial services sectorbased misconduct. It reviews existing research regarding women’s participation1 in © 2018 Tilton. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits the user to copy, distribute, and transmit the work provided that the original author(s) and source are credited. * J.D. Candidate 2018, Columbia Law School; M.A. 2013, Georgetown University; B.A. 2012, Georgetown University. I’d like to thank Professor Elizabeth Emens for her guidance in developing this Note, and the staff of the Columbia Journal of Gender and Law for their thoughtful work preparing it for publication. 1 This Note addresses gender only in terms of a binary distinction between men and women. This conception of gender is unfortunately but necessarily narrow because it reflects the state of the existing research on gender effects of whistleblowing mechanisms. See, e.g., Yuval Feldman & Orly Lobel, The Incentives Matrix: The Comparative Effectiveness of Rewards, Liabilities, Duties, and Protections for Reporting Illegality, 88 Tex. L. Rev. 1151 (2010) [hereinafter Feldman & Lobel, Incentives Matrix] (comparing the responses of men as opposed to women in a survey that studied various legal mechanisms, without greater nuance regarding gender identity); Michael T. Rehg et al., Antecedents and Outcomes of Retaliation Against Whistleblowers: Gender Differences and Power Relationships, 19 ORg. Sci. 221, 235 (2008) (studying the frequency of whistleblowing Columbia Journal of Gender and law 339 35.2 whistleblowing and considers how that evidence should shape choices of policymakers who seek to encourage employee reporting while still fostering workplace environments and regulatory structures that value and benefit from women’s voices.","PeriodicalId":84468,"journal":{"name":"Columbia journal of gender and law","volume":"23 1","pages":"338-368"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Columbia journal of gender and law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7916/D8PC4JHW","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

Laws that incentivize employees to blow the whistle when they perceive a financial risk and protect them from retaliation have sharply increased in popularity and have even become commonplace at the state level for fraud related to government money. DoddFrank codified a similar kind of protection for whistleblowers who report private-sector fraud. This Note suggests that states, especially New York, have an opportunity to propose new financial fraud whistleblower legislation in response to the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce the federal government’s active regulatory role in the financial sector. However, the prevalence and potential of such legislation should inspire a closer look at how legal mechanisms target and encourage participation across the employee population. Any program that seeks to encourage participation within an existing context, such as the financial services workplace, risks entrenching bias and inequality if it fails to consider the differential effects of its design across different demographics. This Note therefore addresses whistleblower laws’ implications for women employees’ participation in whistleblowing when they observe financial services sectorbased misconduct. It reviews existing research regarding women’s participation1 in © 2018 Tilton. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits the user to copy, distribute, and transmit the work provided that the original author(s) and source are credited. * J.D. Candidate 2018, Columbia Law School; M.A. 2013, Georgetown University; B.A. 2012, Georgetown University. I’d like to thank Professor Elizabeth Emens for her guidance in developing this Note, and the staff of the Columbia Journal of Gender and Law for their thoughtful work preparing it for publication. 1 This Note addresses gender only in terms of a binary distinction between men and women. This conception of gender is unfortunately but necessarily narrow because it reflects the state of the existing research on gender effects of whistleblowing mechanisms. See, e.g., Yuval Feldman & Orly Lobel, The Incentives Matrix: The Comparative Effectiveness of Rewards, Liabilities, Duties, and Protections for Reporting Illegality, 88 Tex. L. Rev. 1151 (2010) [hereinafter Feldman & Lobel, Incentives Matrix] (comparing the responses of men as opposed to women in a survey that studied various legal mechanisms, without greater nuance regarding gender identity); Michael T. Rehg et al., Antecedents and Outcomes of Retaliation Against Whistleblowers: Gender Differences and Power Relationships, 19 ORg. Sci. 221, 235 (2008) (studying the frequency of whistleblowing Columbia Journal of Gender and law 339 35.2 whistleblowing and considers how that evidence should shape choices of policymakers who seek to encourage employee reporting while still fostering workplace environments and regulatory structures that value and benefit from women’s voices.
妇女与举报:探索政策设计中的性别影响
鼓励员工在发现财务风险时举报并保护他们免受报复的法律,在州一级的受欢迎程度急剧上升,甚至在与政府资金有关的欺诈行为中也变得司空见惯。多德-弗兰克法案也为举报私营部门欺诈行为的举报人提供了类似的保护。本报告建议,各州,特别是纽约州,有机会提出新的金融欺诈举报人立法,以回应特朗普政府减少联邦政府在金融部门积极监管作用的努力。然而,这种立法的普遍性和潜力应促使人们更仔细地研究法律机制如何针对和鼓励全体雇员的参与。任何旨在鼓励在现有背景下(如金融服务工作场所)参与的项目,如果没有考虑到其设计在不同人群中的差异影响,就有可能加剧偏见和不平等。因此,本说明论述了举报法对女性雇员在观察到金融服务部门的不当行为时参与举报的影响。它回顾了关于妇女参与的现有研究1©2018 Tilton。这是一篇根据知识共享署名许可协议发布的开放获取文章,该协议允许用户在注明原作者和来源的情况下复制、分发和传播作品。*哥伦比亚大学法学院2018年法学博士候选人;2013年,乔治城大学文学硕士;2012年,乔治城大学文学学士。我要感谢伊丽莎白·埃门斯教授为编写本说明提供的指导,感谢《哥伦比亚性别与法律杂志》的工作人员为编写本说明所做的周到工作。1 .本说明仅从男女二元区分的角度讨论性别问题。不幸的是,这种性别概念是狭隘的,因为它反映了现有的关于举报机制的性别影响的研究状况。参见尤瓦尔·费尔德曼和奥尔利·洛贝尔:《激励矩阵:举报违法行为的奖励、责任、义务和保护的比较有效性》,1988年,特刊。L. Rev. 1151(2010)[以下简称Feldman & Lobel, incentive Matrix](在一项研究各种法律机制的调查中,对男性和女性的反应进行比较,没有对性别认同有更大的细微差别);李建平,“举报行为的前因与结果:性别差异与权力关系”,《社会科学》第19期。《哥伦比亚性别与法律杂志》(Columbia Journal of Gender and law) 339 35.2举报,并考虑这些证据应如何影响决策者的选择,他们寻求鼓励员工举报,同时仍在营造重视和受益于女性声音的工作环境和监管结构。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信