GOP's Mental Retardation and Whistleblowers (There's No Special Ed Police)
Mort Zuckerman
lPick...@cdc.gov, Durlan...@yale.edu, Aa...@columbia.edu,
gary_w...@nymc.edu, scientifi...@ostp.gov,
pkru...@princeton.edu, Stanle...@fiu.edu,
emcsw...@niaid.nih.gov, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
michae...@po.state.ct.us, con...@po.state.ct.us, executive-
edi...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, illino...@aol.com, jle...@courant.com,
tinaj...@yahoo.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, brans...@comcast.net,
vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us, freet...@charter.net,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov,
Robert....@yale.edu, edi...@greenwich-post.com,
harol...@yale.edu, sedm...@nswbc.org, rrmcg...@aol.com,
fr...@nytimes.com, dpr...@stmartin.edu, saint....@sbcglobal.net
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com,
paulcrai...@yahoo.com, criminal...@usdoj.gov,
karla.d...@usdoj.gov, christophe...@usdoj.gov,
richar...@yale.edu, harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu,
inq...@aldf.com, ly...@idsociety.org, meganm...@theatlantic.com
Subject: GOP's Mental Retardation and Whistleblowers
Date: Jun 1, 2010 6:15 AM
WHISTLEBLOWER "PROTECTIONS," BELOW
-------------------------------------
Duh GOPs and duh Supremes, being morons
due to their arrogance (a scientifically
proven frequency/occurrence), somehow
worship the corporations as if duh corps(e)
somehow have some expertise in the likes
of scientific and engineering matters.
I think now with Pam3Cys ending up
on the failed HIV vaccine, duh
bats and da bees dying off from new
adapted fungi/(Pam3Cys), and duh corpse'
inability to figger out how to contain an
ocean floor oil leak tells us all that GOP
is retarded.
The NIH is retarded.
The DHHS is retarded.
The HomeLames are just that.
The PATRIOT Act did not protect us from
the non-investigation of the 911 stunt
and monies funding "terrorists" as discovered
by Sibel Edmonds (through the "Turkish" Neocons),
continue, protected by US Forces in Afghanistan.
The USA is a total fricken tardary. The
Dems are too wussified to take on the
criminal Israelis and the criminal Bigs
on our behalf.
Because this is all well-known, internationally,
the US will create some distraction.
It looks like Korea will be the next victim
of our shame,... although there are Israeli
nuclear subs in the Persian Gulf.
We have cops that can take drunk
drivers off the road, but there's no
Special Ed Police to take the tards out
of the "Government."
Kathleen M. Dickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
http://www.relapsingfever.org
===================================
Subject: Safety whistleblower spoke "on a matter of public concern"
Date: Jun 1, 2010 12:15 AM
Safety whistleblower spoke "on a matter of public concern"
http://scienceblogs.com/thepumphandle/2010/05/safety_whistleblower_spoke_on.php
« Memorial Day 2010 | Main
Safety whistleblower spoke "on a matter of public concern"
Category: OSHA • Occupational Health & Safety
Posted on: May 31, 2010 6:18 PM, by Celeste Monforton
Speaking on a "matter of public concern," is protected speech,
according to a federal jury inBecky McClain v. Pfizer, Inc. In this
case, the jury found that being exposed at work to a genetically
engineered virus or other biotech agents is indeed a legitimate matter
of public concern. It involved Ms. Becky McClain who was employed as a
molecular biologist by the pharmaceutical giant at their Groton, CT
research center. She raised concerns in 2002-2003 about unsafe lab
practices including procedures involving a genetically-modified
viruses, (a pseudotype Lentivirus, HIV with a Vesicular Stomalitis
Virus Glycoprotein pseudocoal) and eventually filed a complaint with
federal OSHA after being retaliated against for speaking up about her
safety concerns. In a Sept 27, 2006 letter from federal OSHA the
agency said:
"The fact that Complainant engaged in protected activity
throughout 2002 and 2003--by raising concerns about industrial
hygiene, claiming that her supervisor had subjected her to workplace
violence, and being a member of a safety committee---is undisputed. It
is also undisputed that Respondent was aware of this activity and that
it took several adverse actions against her."[emphasis added]
Despite this, Ms. McClain's experience as a whistleblower could not
meet the insurmountable criteria under the OSH Act, as is the case for
many workers who are retaliated against for complaining about safety.
The first strike against Ms. McClain under OSHA's whistleblower
provision (Section 11c of the OSH Act) was the requirement to file her
complaint within 30 days of the alleged retaliation. (I can imagine a
situation where a worker doesn't realize she has been retaliated
against until after 30 days have passed.)
The OSHA system failed her, but she pursued her complaint under
different legal authority, and a six year battle ensued between the
safety whistleblower and Pfizer. On May 21, 2010, a jury found in Ms.
McClain's favor.
I offer below the 20 specific findings by the jury in favor of Ms.
McClain, but first I need to comment on an item in a New York Times'
article related to this case. In Pollack and Wilson's"Safety Rules
Can't Keep Up with Biotech Industry," the reporters correctly note
that federal OSHA has failed to venture into a regulatory scheme to
protect biotech workers. I'm always pleased when any recognition of
worker health and safety finds its way into print. The NYTimes
reporters make a giant, really GIANT leap, however, linking OSHA's May
6 request for information on infectious diseases, (75 Fed Reg 24835)
and a possible regulation to protect biotech workers like Becky
McClain.
The reporters write:
"...as a first step toward possible new regulations, the agency
issued a sweeping request for information on occupational risks from
infectious agents, and for suggestions on how to reduce them. The
focus is mainly on hospital and other health care workers, but any
rules are expected to also cover industry laboratory workers."
Whoa Nellie! Since when is an OSHA Federal Register notice requesting
information from the public translate into the "first step toward
possible new regulations"??
When I hear "first step," I think proximity or nearness in time.
History tells us, however, there's little connection between OSHA
publishing a request for information (RFI) and a subsequent new
regulation 7, 8 or even 9 years later. For example, OSHA chose the RFI
route in January 1984 for the compound 1,3 butadiene and a final rule
wasn't issued until November 1996 (and under an unusual labor-mgmt
agreement that probably expedited the rulemaking.) For its rule on
toxic chemicals in laboratories, OSHA published an RFI in April 1981
and the final rule was issued in January 1990. OSHA's RFI on beryllium
was published in November 2002 and the next step has yet to be taken.
What's particularly disconcerting about biotech hazards is seeing how
the industry's advances skip whole generations in just 1-2 years.
Compare that to OSHA's rulemaking process which slogs along in decade-
long increments. It's difficult for me to imagine how information from
this RFI will result in near-term protections for biotech workers. I
hope that OSHA is considering alternatives, such as simple right-to-
know protections so workers aren't obstructed by employers claiming
these bioengineered materials are proprietary. (That's an issue that
Ms. Becky McClain is still fighting.)
In Becky McClain v. Pfizer, the jury found in favor of the safety
whistleblower on 20 counts. The jury's complete verdict is here and
I've summarized it below:
First count:
A1: Did Becky McClain prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
she made her November 18, 2004 report to OSHA in good faith, that is,
that she truly believed that Pfizer had violated workplace safety
laws? Yes.
A2: The parties have stipulated that Pfizer discharged Becky McClain
after she made her November 18, 2004 report to OSHA about a suspected
violation of law. Did Becky McClain prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that Pfizer also disciplines or otherwise penalized Becky
McClain after she made her report? Yes.
A3: Did Becky McClain prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
Pfizer's non-retaliatory explanation for terminating her, that she
abandoned her job, was not the true and only reason for her discharge?
Yes.
A4: Did Becky McClain prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
her report to OSHA was a substantial or motivating factor for Pfizer's
decision to discharge her? Yes.
A5: Did Becky McClain prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
her report to OSHA was a substantial or motivating factor for Pfizer's
decision to discipline or otherwise penalize her? Yes.
A6: Did Becky McClain prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
she suffered damages as a result of Pfizer's proven violation of the
law on the First Count? Yes.
A7: Did Becky McClain prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
she is entitled to damages for back pay, (lost wages and lost
benefits) as a result of Pfizer's proven violation of law on the First
Count? Yes.
A8: What amount of lost wages and benefits did Becky McClain prove, by
a preponderance of the evidence, that she suffered as a result of
Pfizer's proven violation on the First Count?$685,000
A9: Did Pfizer prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Becky
McClain failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate her lost wages and
lost benefits that resulted from Pfizer's proven violation of law on
the First Count? No.
A10: What amount of lost wages and benefits, if any, did Pfizer prove,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that Becky McClain could have
mitigated by seeking alternate employment of by accepting reasonable
offers of employment? $ 0.
Second Count:
B1:Did Becky McClain prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
she spoke, verbally or in writing, about a matter of public concern?
Yes.
B2: Did Becky McClain prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
her speech on a matter of public concern was made as a public citizen
and not solely to address a personal concern? Yes.
B3: Did Becky McClain prove by a preponderance of the evidence that at
the time she spoke on a matter of public concern she believed that her
speech was truthful and that it was not made with a reckless disregard
for the truth? Yes.
B4: Did Becky McClain prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
her speech on an issue of public concern did not substantially or
materially interfere with her bona fide job performance or her working
relationship at Pfizer? Yes.
B5: The parties have stipulated that Becky McClain was terminated by
Pfizer on May 26, 2005. Did Becky McClain prove by a preponderance of
the evidence that Pfizer also disciplined her on or after October 11,
2003. Yes.
B6: Did Becky McClain prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
her speech on a matter of public concern was a substantial or
motivating factor for Pfizer's decision to discharge her? Yes.
B7: If the answer to "B5" is "yes", did Becky McClain prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that her speech on a matter of public
concern was a substantial and motivating factor for Pfizer's decision
to discipline her on or after October 11, 2003? Yes.
B8: Did Becky McClain prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
she is entitled to punitive damages for Pfizer's proven violation of
the Second Count, that is, that Pfizer's violation of her free speech
rights was willful, malicious, or a result of reckless indifference?
Yes.
B9: Did Becky McClain prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
she suffered damages as a result of Pfizer's proven violation of law
on the Second Count? Yes.
B10: Did Pfizer prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Becky
McClain failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate damages that she
suffered as a result of Pfizer's proven violation of law on the Second
Count? No.
This reads like a slam dunk for Becky McClain. It seems bittersweet
though because our federal law for safety whistleblowers should
provide adequate redress. There are hundreds of Becky McClains out
there who've been harmed for complaining about safety, but maybe only
a few who had their successful day in court.
"[Real] scientists are *fiercely* independent. That's the good
news."-- NIH's Top Fool, Anthony Fauci