The Department of Homeland Security regularly requires its employees, contractors, retailers and consultants to sign NDAs to access DHS systems and information. However, 75 percent of the agreements were reached in 75 percent of those interim years between fiscal years 2014 and 2017, but the department found that the department did not contain binding language reminding employees of their protection from whistleblowers. Such failures could “deter reporting waste, fraud or abuse” and “counter the promotion of an open and transparent environment,” according to the SdI. Under the first law, a person who knowingly discloses non-governmental information is liable to a civil penalty of up to $100,000. This law applies to both government employees and non-employees who access confidential information. This law is used most often during the tendering process and does not apply once the contract has been awarded. 4. The recipient may enter into a direct agreement with the contractor for the use, modification, reproduction, disclosure, delivery, notification or disclosure of this data. However, public sector employees are not entitled to absolute first-amendment protection. And even if someone is a whistleblower and is suing in federal court of justice for being unlawfully dismissed, they can sign an agreement so that they do not make further disclosures in exchange for a monetary agreement.
Also, in a case called Garcetti v. Ceballos, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that public employees can be fired or disciplined for the language related to their jobs. This case deserves to examine in more detail what is protected, what can dismiss a public employee. Richard Ceballos, an employee of the Los Angeles district attorney`s office, discovered that a sheriff in an affidavit misrepresented a search warrant. Ceballos informed the lawyers who followed the case that resulted from the arrest, and everyone agreed that the insurance under oath was debatable, but the D.A. office refused to dismiss the case. Ceballos then told the defence that he believed the sworn insurance contained false statements, and defence counsel called him to testify. Ceballos claimed that D.A.s in the office retaliated against him for his collaboration with the defense, which he argued, was protected by the First Amendment. He filed a complaint with the Federal Court of Justice and went all the way to the Supreme Court. In a 5-4 decision by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court stated that a public servant`s speech is protected only if it is considered an individual, and not when it is expressed as part of the public duties of the public servant.
The court stated that Ceballo`s employers were entitled to take action against him on the basis of his testimony and cooperation with the defence, because he was part of his official obligations. “The fact that his duties sometimes required him to speak or write,” Justice Kennedy wrote, “does not mean that his superiors were prohibited from evaluating his performance.” The case was at the heart of the whistleblower statutes, and experts estimated that this decision led to the rejection of about 90% of whistleblower cases filed at the time. And when I represent people who write books about their time in the CIA or the Air Force all the time, they submit their books to pre-publication, and they`re only shot for classified information. Over the past four decades, the courts have made it clear that there is no legitimate interest for the government in prohibiting the dissemination of unclassified information. So what the Trump administration has done to bring its corporate mentality, in some cases they have tried, apparently successfully, to get people to sign confidentiality agreements. Well, the courts … (b) the obligation to use and confidentiality agreements do not apply to state contractors who require access to third-party data or software for the performance of a government contract containing the clause