Not yet a Member?
HR Magazine is highlighting the next generation of HR leaders.
Is your employee handbook ready for the New Year? With SHRM’s Employee Handbook Builder get peace of mind that your handbook is up-to-date.
30+ HR education programs, including 4 NEW programs on hot topics, are available for registration.
Join us in Chicago for the latest trends and technology in talent management, and what to expect in the future.
As long as a whistle-blower narrowly takes confidential information for the purposes of reporting violations to the government or seeking assistance from an attorney, strong public-policy considerations may protect the whistle-blower from breach of confidentiality agreement claims, according to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Despite these acknowledgments, Cieszyski admittedly accessed confidential information unnecessary to his job and disclosed the materials to a third party. This disclosure, however, was made to his own attorney and the government in correlation with his allegations that LifeWatch was in violation of the False Claims Act (FCA), and led to the current case.
After balancing “the need to protect whistle-blowers and prevent chilling their attempts to uncover fraud against the government against an employer’s legitimate expectations that its confidential information will be protected,” Magistrate Judge Sidney I. Schenkier agreed with Cieszyski. Schenkier evaluated the case based on the reasonableness and scope of the disclosures in connection with the third parties to whom Cieszyski made the disclosures, and found Cieszyski only disclosed that information needed to “support his suspicions of fraud against the government.”
Schenkier differentiated this case from prior FCA cases in which a company was able to pursue its counterclaim against the plaintiff. In those other instances, the plaintiffs had taken documents with no intent to file an FCA lawsuit, made documents public, disclosed documents with trade secret information that could cause independent damage to the business, and/or convinced other employees to also take documents. Because LifeWatch only alleged damages related to pursuing the counterclaim and did not provide sufficient evidence of an overbroad use of documents, the court did not find the breach of confidentiality strong enough to outweigh the protection due to a whistle-blower.
United States ex. Rel. Cieszyski v. LifeWatch Servs. Inc., N.D. Ill., No. 13-CV-4052, No. 95 (May 9, 2016).
Professional Pointer: Even if an organization has narrow confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements, they are not infallible. An FCA whistle-blower is protected by a higher standard that could allow for disclosure of confidential information. Employers should investigate the parameters of a disclosure before filing a breach of contract claim that could potentially end up as a further retaliation claim against the organization.
Kaitlin H. Ziegler is an attorney with Kamer Zucker Abbott, the Worklaw® Network member firm in Las Vegas.
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Your session has expired. Please log in again before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
Join SHRM's exclusive peer-to-peer social network
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 3,200 companies