举报人不需要申请

IF 1.3 3区 社会学 Q3 BUSINESS
Leora F. Eisenstadt, Jennifer M. Pacella
{"title":"举报人不需要申请","authors":"Leora F. Eisenstadt,&nbsp;Jennifer M. Pacella","doi":"10.1111/ablj.12131","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Whistleblowers are severely disadvantaged when they apply for jobs. Many whistleblowers experience retaliation twofold—first, at their place of employment after they initially blow the whistle, and, second, on the job market for any subsequent employment. This negative trail follows whistleblowers, labeling them as disloyal, suspicious, and, ultimately, not ideal employees, and, thus, unable to find work. Current federal law largely ignores this problem, and protections for job applicants with whistleblowing histories have been severely lacking in some of the most prominent whistleblowing statutes. This article is the first to examine this glaring lack of legal protection as it pertains specifically to whistleblower job applicants by undertaking a comparative analysis of the retaliation protections available in a number of federal statutes and suggesting statutory reform based on that analysis. Specifically, this article draws comparisons between civil rights statutes, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which each provide expansive protections for job applicants, and the most prominent current federal whistleblowing statutes, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Act, and the False Claims Act, which lack these protections. We conclude by recommending amendments to these federal whistleblowing statutes, arguing for specific retaliation protections and redress for whistleblowers who are denied a chance to work again because of their past revelations.</p>","PeriodicalId":54186,"journal":{"name":"American Business Law Journal","volume":"55 4","pages":"665-719"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/ablj.12131","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Whistleblowers Need Not Apply\",\"authors\":\"Leora F. Eisenstadt,&nbsp;Jennifer M. Pacella\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ablj.12131\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Whistleblowers are severely disadvantaged when they apply for jobs. Many whistleblowers experience retaliation twofold—first, at their place of employment after they initially blow the whistle, and, second, on the job market for any subsequent employment. This negative trail follows whistleblowers, labeling them as disloyal, suspicious, and, ultimately, not ideal employees, and, thus, unable to find work. Current federal law largely ignores this problem, and protections for job applicants with whistleblowing histories have been severely lacking in some of the most prominent whistleblowing statutes. This article is the first to examine this glaring lack of legal protection as it pertains specifically to whistleblower job applicants by undertaking a comparative analysis of the retaliation protections available in a number of federal statutes and suggesting statutory reform based on that analysis. Specifically, this article draws comparisons between civil rights statutes, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which each provide expansive protections for job applicants, and the most prominent current federal whistleblowing statutes, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Act, and the False Claims Act, which lack these protections. We conclude by recommending amendments to these federal whistleblowing statutes, arguing for specific retaliation protections and redress for whistleblowers who are denied a chance to work again because of their past revelations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54186,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Business Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"55 4\",\"pages\":\"665-719\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-11-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/ablj.12131\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Business Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ablj.12131\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Business Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ablj.12131","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

摘要

举报人在申请工作时处于严重不利地位。许多告密者经历了双重报复——一是在最初告密后在工作地点,二是在就业市场上为随后的任何工作进行报复。这种负面线索跟踪告密者,称他们不忠、多疑,最终不是理想的员工,因此找不到工作。目前的联邦法律在很大程度上忽略了这个问题,一些最著名的举报法规严重缺乏对有举报历史的求职者的保护。这篇文章是第一篇研究这种明显缺乏法律保护的情况的文章,因为它专门针对举报人的求职者,通过对一些联邦法规中可用的报复保护进行比较分析,并根据分析建议进行法律改革。具体而言,这篇文章对民权法规进行了比较,包括1964年《民权法案》第七章、《美国残疾人法案》和《就业年龄歧视法案》,它们都为求职者提供了广泛的保护,以及目前最突出的联邦检举法规《萨班斯-奥克斯利法案》、《多德-弗兰克法案》,以及缺乏这些保护的《虚假索赔法》。“举报人无需申请”最后建议对这些联邦举报人法规进行修正,主张为那些因过去的爆料而被剥夺再次工作机会的举报人提供具体的报复保护和补偿。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Whistleblowers Need Not Apply

Whistleblowers are severely disadvantaged when they apply for jobs. Many whistleblowers experience retaliation twofold—first, at their place of employment after they initially blow the whistle, and, second, on the job market for any subsequent employment. This negative trail follows whistleblowers, labeling them as disloyal, suspicious, and, ultimately, not ideal employees, and, thus, unable to find work. Current federal law largely ignores this problem, and protections for job applicants with whistleblowing histories have been severely lacking in some of the most prominent whistleblowing statutes. This article is the first to examine this glaring lack of legal protection as it pertains specifically to whistleblower job applicants by undertaking a comparative analysis of the retaliation protections available in a number of federal statutes and suggesting statutory reform based on that analysis. Specifically, this article draws comparisons between civil rights statutes, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which each provide expansive protections for job applicants, and the most prominent current federal whistleblowing statutes, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the Dodd-Frank Act, and the False Claims Act, which lack these protections. We conclude by recommending amendments to these federal whistleblowing statutes, arguing for specific retaliation protections and redress for whistleblowers who are denied a chance to work again because of their past revelations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
16.70%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The ABLJ is a faculty-edited, double blind peer reviewed journal, continuously published since 1963. Our mission is to publish only top quality law review articles that make a scholarly contribution to all areas of law that impact business theory and practice. We search for those articles that articulate a novel research question and make a meaningful contribution directly relevant to scholars and practitioners of business law. The blind peer review process means legal scholars well-versed in the relevant specialty area have determined selected articles are original, thorough, important, and timely. Faculty editors assure the authors’ contribution to scholarship is evident. We aim to elevate legal scholarship and inform responsible business decisions.
×
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