FAM Fired for Revealing Info Deemed “Sensitive” After He Revealed It
Jan 21, 2015, 7:43 pm
#271
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,878
The SC ruled in favor of MacLean, 7-2.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/253314423/...MacLean-13-894
Short and sweet:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/253314423/...MacLean-13-894
Short and sweet:
Jan 22, 2015, 9:49 am
#272
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
Not sure if I understand exactly what this ruling does. I have seen one article that says MacLean can now seek Whistle Blower Protection. If that's the case then isn't this just a big never-ending circle?
If he didn't violate the law then he should be restored to his former position with adjustments made for likely advancements over the years, all back pay including likely travel per diem that he would have collected, and any other damages that should be awarded such as legal expenses.
So is this just the 7th inning stretch or what?
If he didn't violate the law then he should be restored to his former position with adjustments made for likely advancements over the years, all back pay including likely travel per diem that he would have collected, and any other damages that should be awarded such as legal expenses.
So is this just the 7th inning stretch or what?
Jan 22, 2015, 10:44 am
#273
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2012
Programs: A3, AA. Plasticy things! That give me, y'know, Stuff!
Posts: 6,293
There are some quite pretty slap downs of the government in both the opinion and dissent. 
Jan 25, 2015, 2:33 am
#274
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 221
How about the timing of this? Two days after MacLean's victory:
http://nypost.com/2015/01/24/homelan...nesses-at-jfk/
Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...airport-audit/
IG Roth tweeted a protest:
https://twitter.com/DHSOIG/status/558650902047780865
"The agency also wrongly insisted that lapses involving access to 'sensitive equipment' be kept hidden from the public.
Such lapses were marked by the TSA with a special security designation — known as 'SSI,' for 'sensitive security information' — requiring that they be redacted from [Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General John] Roth’s draft audit.
. . .
The TSA’s decision to misapply the 'sensitive security information' designation subverted his ability to do his job, Roth insisted."
Such lapses were marked by the TSA with a special security designation — known as 'SSI,' for 'sensitive security information' — requiring that they be redacted from [Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General John] Roth’s draft audit.
. . .
The TSA’s decision to misapply the 'sensitive security information' designation subverted his ability to do his job, Roth insisted."
Washington Post:
"'Over-classification is the enemy of good government,' Roth said Friday. 'I believe — and the computer experts on my staff confirm — that this [TSA security lapses] report should be released in its entirety in the public domain.'"
IG Roth tweeted a protest:
https://twitter.com/DHSOIG/status/558650902047780865
Jan 25, 2015, 11:44 am
#275
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2012
Programs: A3, AA. Plasticy things! That give me, y'know, Stuff!
Posts: 6,293
http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2...5-18_Jan14.pdf
Right from the start it's an indictment of TSA and DHS. Rank incompetence & paranoia. What's the point of having an IG if they have no power to do anything?
Right from the start it's an indictment of TSA and DHS. Rank incompetence & paranoia. What's the point of having an IG if they have no power to do anything?
Jan 26, 2015, 12:56 pm
#276
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NYC
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Gold, Hertz PC, National Exec
Posts: 6,736
Not sure if I understand exactly what this ruling does. I have seen one article that says MacLean can now seek Whistle Blower Protection. If that's the case then isn't this just a big never-ending circle?
If he didn't violate the law then he should be restored to his former position with adjustments made for likely advancements over the years, all back pay including likely travel per diem that he would have collected, and any other damages that should be awarded such as legal expenses.
So is this just the 7th inning stretch or what?
If he didn't violate the law then he should be restored to his former position with adjustments made for likely advancements over the years, all back pay including likely travel per diem that he would have collected, and any other damages that should be awarded such as legal expenses.
So is this just the 7th inning stretch or what?
So, MacLean goes back to the panel that initially reviewed his case, but this time, with the ability to argue that he was acting appropriately as a whistleblower. The first time around, the panel ruled that, regardless of whether the information he disclosed qualifies as whistleblowing information, since the disclosure was prohibited by law, he couldn't qualify as a whistleblower.
To get whistleblower protection, you need two things:
(a) the disclosure of the information needs to be in the public interest, and
(b) it can't be specifically prohibited by law
Jan 26, 2015, 1:08 pm
#277
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: where the chile is hot
Programs: AA,RR,NW,Delta ,UA,CO
Posts: 41,668
He's a long ways from being vindicated on this.
It will go back to the panel, which will delay as long as possible before taking up the matter, then find against him on (a) - the information wasn't in the public interest.
The fight against that will be almost as difficult as the fight he's just been through. He'll have to find a way to 'prove' that the information was in the public interest. The other side will argue that history already proves he was wrong - the changes he revealed haven't resulted in harm.
It will go back to the panel, which will delay as long as possible before taking up the matter, then find against him on (a) - the information wasn't in the public interest.
The fight against that will be almost as difficult as the fight he's just been through. He'll have to find a way to 'prove' that the information was in the public interest. The other side will argue that history already proves he was wrong - the changes he revealed haven't resulted in harm.
Jan 26, 2015, 1:16 pm
#278
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
Whistleblower protection doesn't apply to people who make disclosures "specifically prohibited by law." The Supreme Court ruled that , while the disclosures here were prohibited by a DHS rule or regulation, they weren't prohibited by statute (i.e. law), so the exception to whistleblower protections doesn't apply.
So, MacLean goes back to the panel that initially reviewed his case, but this time, with the ability to argue that he was acting appropriately as a whistleblower. The first time around, the panel ruled that, regardless of whether the information he disclosed qualifies as whistleblowing information, since the disclosure was prohibited by law, he couldn't qualify as a whistleblower.
To get whistleblower protection, you need two things:
(a) the disclosure of the information needs to be in the public interest, and
(b) it can't be specifically prohibited by law
So, MacLean goes back to the panel that initially reviewed his case, but this time, with the ability to argue that he was acting appropriately as a whistleblower. The first time around, the panel ruled that, regardless of whether the information he disclosed qualifies as whistleblowing information, since the disclosure was prohibited by law, he couldn't qualify as a whistleblower.
To get whistleblower protection, you need two things:
(a) the disclosure of the information needs to be in the public interest, and
(b) it can't be specifically prohibited by law
In follow up I guess a strong case can be made that he was fired without cause and he should be restored to duty with all back pays and other benefits restored as well.
As I understand Federal LEO's have a maximum age before mandatory retirement of age 57. If MacLean has reach mandatory retirement age he should be due all back pay and other benefits he would have received while on regular employment plus all retirement benefits he would have also earned. I can see some big issues with TSP and other benefits that he could not use or contribute to due to his being fired.
It may not be the 7th inning stretch but actually the 1st inning of a new game.
Jan 26, 2015, 3:22 pm
#279
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 4,332
He's a long ways from being vindicated on this.
It will go back to the panel, which will delay as long as possible before taking up the matter, then find against him on (a) - the information wasn't in the public interest.
The fight against that will be almost as difficult as the fight he's just been through. He'll have to find a way to 'prove' that the information was in the public interest. The other side will argue that history already proves he was wrong - the changes he revealed haven't resulted in harm.
It will go back to the panel, which will delay as long as possible before taking up the matter, then find against him on (a) - the information wasn't in the public interest.
The fight against that will be almost as difficult as the fight he's just been through. He'll have to find a way to 'prove' that the information was in the public interest. The other side will argue that history already proves he was wrong - the changes he revealed haven't resulted in harm.
The government would be admitting that they're morons in order to cover up being jackasses.
Only in America.
Jan 31, 2015, 6:59 pm
#280
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,584
http://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/2...5-18_Jan14.pdf
Right from the start it's an indictment of TSA and DHS. Rank incompetence & paranoia. What's the point of having an IG if they have no power to do anything?
Right from the start it's an indictment of TSA and DHS. Rank incompetence & paranoia. What's the point of having an IG if they have no power to do anything?
He's a long ways from being vindicated on this.
It will go back to the panel, which will delay as long as possible before taking up the matter, then find against him on (a) - the information wasn't in the public interest.
The fight against that will be almost as difficult as the fight he's just been through. He'll have to find a way to 'prove' that the information was in the public interest. The other side will argue that history already proves he was wrong - the changes he revealed haven't resulted in harm.
It will go back to the panel, which will delay as long as possible before taking up the matter, then find against him on (a) - the information wasn't in the public interest.
The fight against that will be almost as difficult as the fight he's just been through. He'll have to find a way to 'prove' that the information was in the public interest. The other side will argue that history already proves he was wrong - the changes he revealed haven't resulted in harm.
Apr 19, 2015, 11:46 am
#282
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 221
UPDATE on MacLean case
The administrative judge just issued his first order after case remanded to him from the U.S. Supreme Court:
http://goo.gl/i9SfKe
Orange County Register story:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/m...ity-court.html
ORDER FOR THE AGENCY TO SHOW CAUSE . . . The record to date, inclusive of the hearing testimony, reflects that the appellant made a protected [ WHISTLEBLOWER ] disclosure when he disclosed the contents of the text message at issue on or about July 29, 2003. . . . In reviewing the record to date inclusive of the hearing testimony presented by the agency, it is unclear how the agency would meet the first two factors under Carr, and a continuation of the hearing does not appear to be necessary.
Orange County Register story:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/m...ity-court.html
Apr 19, 2015, 1:46 pm
#283
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,110
The administrative judge just issued his first order after case remanded to him from the U.S. Supreme Court:
http://goo.gl/i9SfKe
Orange County Register story:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/m...ity-court.html
http://goo.gl/i9SfKe
Orange County Register story:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/m...ity-court.html
No details please, just wonder if they are trying to extricate themselves from this now.
Apr 19, 2015, 1:55 pm
#284
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 221
Per the Orange County Register's article:
"MacLean and the DHS are currently in settlement talks."
"MacLean and the DHS are currently in settlement talks."