Chapter 30 Exercises: Whistleblowing, Dissent, and Organizational Surveillance

Exercise 30.1 — The Decision Matrix: Should Jordan Report?

Type: Individual structured ethical analysis Time: 40–50 minutes

Instructions

Jordan Ellis has witnessed what appears to be retaliatory termination of a coworker (Diego) following a workplace injury. Jordan is deciding whether to file an OSHA complaint. This exercise uses a structured decision matrix to analyze the decision systematically.

Part A: Identify the stakeholders and their interests

List every party with an interest in Jordan's decision and describe what each party's interest is:

  • Jordan
  • Diego
  • Meridian Logistics (the employer)
  • Other warehouse workers at the facility
  • OSHA and the public interest in workplace safety enforcement
  • Jordan's supervisor and floor managers
  • Jordan's union (if there is one) or coworkers who would be affected

Part B: Apply the three ethical principles from the chapter

For each principle, answer the specific question it raises about Jordan's situation:

  1. Proportionality: How serious is the public harm? Compare to other examples of reportable wrongdoing you can think of. Where does retaliatory termination after a workplace injury fall on the seriousness spectrum?

  2. Exhaustion: Have internal channels been used or are they unavailable? What would internal reporting look like at Meridian Logistics? Who would Jordan report to? What would happen? Is the internal channel adequate for this type of violation?

  3. Necessity: What is the minimum disclosure necessary? Does an OSHA complaint require Jordan to disclose everything they know, or only the specific incident involving Diego? Is there a way to protect Diego without disclosing Jordan's own observations?

Part C: Risk assessment (150–200 words)

Identify and evaluate the specific risks Jordan faces in reporting. Consider: legal risks (retaliation, policy violations), practical risks (job security, relationship with management), and personal risks (stress, time, resources).

Part D: Your recommendation (100–150 words)

Based on your analysis, what do you recommend Jordan do? Be specific about: which channel (OSHA, internal, attorney consultation, labor organization), in what sequence, with what documentation steps.

Exercise 30.2 — DLP Simulation: The Evidence Dilemma

Type: Scenario analysis and written reflection Time: 35–45 minutes

Instructions

This exercise explores the tension between a whistleblower's need to preserve evidence and an employer's ability to detect and respond to evidence gathering.

Scenario: Elena works as a financial analyst at a regional bank. She has discovered what she believes is systematic mortgage fraud — loans approved based on falsified income documentation. She wants to report this to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). To make a credible report, she needs evidence.

The relevant documents are on the bank's internal system. Elena can access them through her regular job. She wants to gather: - Emails showing supervisors were aware of the falsified documentation - Loan approval records for 15 specific loans - Two internal memos referencing the documentation problems

Analyze each evidence-gathering approach and its risks:

  1. Option A: Email the documents to her personal Gmail account from her work email. - DLP risk level: (assess) - Legal risk to Elena: (assess) - Practical effectiveness: (assess)

  2. Option B: Print the documents and take the paper copies home. - DLP risk level: (assess) - Legal risk to Elena: (assess) - Practical effectiveness: (assess)

  3. Option C: Take photographs of her screen with her personal phone. - DLP risk level: (assess) - Legal risk to Elena: (assess) - Practical effectiveness: (assess)

  4. Option D: Provide the names of the specific documents and access paths to her attorney, who contacts the OCC on her behalf without Elena removing documents. - DLP risk level: (assess) - Legal risk to Elena: (assess) - Practical effectiveness: (assess)

  5. Option E: File a qui tam complaint under the False Claims Act without pre-gathered evidence, relying on the government's investigative subpoena power to obtain records. - DLP risk level: (assess) - Legal risk to Elena: (assess) - Practical effectiveness: (assess)

Written Reflection (200–300 words): What does this dilemma reveal about the relationship between organizational surveillance systems (DLP) and legal whistleblower protections? Should employees who gather evidence of fraud through methods that technically violate company policy be protected under whistleblower statutes? Research the existing legal answer to this question.

Exercise 30.3 — Whistleblower Case Comparison: Three Paradigms

Type: Comparative research and analysis Time: 60–75 minutes (can be assigned as homework)

Instructions

Three major whistleblower cases define different paradigms for understanding the relationship between organizational surveillance, legal protection, and public interest:

  1. Sherron Watkins (Enron, 2001) — Internal corporate whistleblower; the legal response was SOX
  2. Edward Snowden (NSA, 2013) — National security whistleblower; disclosed to journalists; fled abroad
  3. Frances Haugen (Facebook, 2021) — Corporate whistleblower; disclosed to Congress and media; remained in U.S.

Research each case using news reporting, Congressional testimony, and available secondary sources.

For each case, document:

A. What wrongdoing was disclosed? What was its public significance?

B. What channel did the whistleblower use? Why did they choose this channel?

C. What legal protections were available? Were they used? Were they effective?

D. What surveillance of the whistleblower occurred before, during, or after the disclosure? What attempts to identify or silence the whistleblower were made?

E. What consequences did the whistleblower face? What consequences did the organization face?

Synthesis (300–400 words):

Based on your research, what distinguishes whistleblowers who achieved substantial public benefit from those who did not? What role did surveillance — of the wrongdoing, of the whistleblower, of the organization by the whistleblower — play in each case? What does comparing these three cases suggest about what conditions are necessary for whistleblowing to work?

Exercise 30.4 — Designing Against Retaliation: Organizational Systems

Type: Design exercise (individual or small group) Time: 45–55 minutes

Instructions

The chapter describes how performance monitoring systems can be weaponized for "soft retaliation." This exercise asks you to design a set of organizational safeguards that would make this weaponization detectable and preventable.

The problem: Jordan has filed an OSHA safety complaint. They are now concerned that their performance will be scrutinized more heavily, their assignments will be harder, and they will eventually be terminated "for performance reasons" — a common soft retaliation pattern.

Design challenge: Propose a set of organizational policies and technical systems that would:

  1. Detect selective monitoring: How could the organization's system identify when an individual employee is being scrutinized at a higher intensity than their peers (more frequent supervisor check-ins, lower idle-time thresholds, closer rate monitoring)?

  2. Create an audit trail: What records should be automatically created when disciplinary actions follow protected activity within a certain time window? Who should have access to these records?

  3. Protect the protected: What should happen when an employee files an OSHA complaint or other protected report? Should they be assigned to a different supervisor? Should their performance monitoring data be separately reviewed by HR? Should they have the right to see their monitoring data during a defined protection period?

  4. Enforce consequences for retaliation: What should happen when the organization's system detects likely soft retaliation? Who is responsible? What is the escalation path?

Reflection (150–200 words):

What organizational interests create resistance to implementing the safeguards you've designed? Who within an organization would benefit from your system, and who would resist it? What does the likely resistance reveal about the relationship between organizational power and whistleblower protection?

Exercise 30.5 — The NLRA and Concerted Activity: Know Your Rights

Type: Legal research and scenario application Time: 45–55 minutes

Instructions

Under the NLRA, workers have the right to engage in "concerted activity" regarding wages, hours, and working conditions. This exercise tests your understanding of what is and is not protected.

Part A: Research the basics

Using the NLRB's own website (nlrb.gov) and the National Employment Law Project's resources (nelp.org), answer:

  1. What is "concerted activity" under the NLRA?
  2. What is the "protected" element — what makes concerted activity protected from employer retaliation?
  3. Does the NLRA protect workers who are not in a union? (This is a critically important and commonly misunderstood point.)
  4. What is the Weingarten right and when does it apply?
  5. What is an "unfair labor practice" (ULP) and how do you file a ULP charge?

Part B: Apply to scenarios

For each scenario, determine whether the activity is likely protected under the NLRA and what the employer can and cannot legally do:

  1. Three warehouse workers discuss wages with each other and discover that two of them are being paid $2/hour less than coworkers with equivalent jobs. They ask their supervisor about the disparity.

  2. An employee posts on their personal Facebook page: "My employer is a joke. Three people got injured this month and they're still making us hit the same rate."

  3. An employee sends a group text to ten coworkers proposing that they all arrive 15 minutes late on Friday to protest a new scheduling policy.

  4. An employee is called into a meeting with their supervisor and HR to discuss "concerns about their attitude." The employee asks to have a coworker present.

  5. Two employees spend 20 minutes during their lunch break discussing with coworkers whether to contact a union organizer.

Part C: Reflection (150–200 words)

The NLRA's protections extend to non-union workplaces — but many workers don't know this. Jordan didn't know about NLRA protections when they witnessed Diego's termination. What are the implications of workers not knowing their legal rights? What would it take to change this?