 |
| Source; Gregory C. Keating's "Retaliation and Whistleblowing, a Guide for Human Resource Professionals and Counsel" |
I reported through Wells Fargo’s internal anonymous/confidential ethics line with an external email address and phone number, after which I was contacted on multiple occasions by investigators on my Wells Fargo email and phone.
On January 4, 2012, an internal email in response to my ethics line complaint from a Senior Investigative Agent and Vice President from Wells Fargo Corporate Investigations said “Please confer with your manager if you feel the need, but our case is closed.”
 |
| Retaliation & Whistleblowing: A Guide for HR Professionals & Counsel, by Gregory C. Keating |
Realizing my anonymity was compromised and my family’s safety at risk after the first internal ‘investigation’ was ‘closed’ without any indication of Wells Fargo following procedures or not, I took the issues to my local manager..
.
.
From: Waillim D. Sevipy Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 11:32 AM To: Hartzman, George
Subject: RE: Please provide an update on this ethics issue. This is some info from the 10ks etc...
George, I thought we agreed that you would stop this??
Waillim D. Sevipy
.
.
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 11:34 AM To: Waillim D. Sevipy
Subject: RE: Please provide an update on this ethics issue…
How can I teach ethics and do nothing?
George Hartzman
.
.
From: Waillim D. Sevipy Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 11:36 AM To: Hartzman, George
Subject: RE: Please provide an update on this ethics issue...
You have been warned to stand down on this, that is all I'm saying.
Waillim D. Sevipy
.
.
Thinking I could mitigate personal risk by contacting regulatory authorities, I filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) amongst others which went nowhere. I then filed with the NC Secretary of State Securities Division, who investigated and referred files to Atlanta's SEC offices.
And then nothing.
Regulatory authorities will not say whether a case exists or if a case is opened or closed, even though I contacted the government during and after interactions with Wells Fargo management, leaving myself and loved ones at risk of reprisal.
.
.
From "SOX whistleblower decision creates employer problems", by Correy E. Stephenson, Tue, December 6, 2011
"In the case before the ARB, a Halliburton employee filed a complaint with the Securities and Exchange Commission over certain accounting practices used by the company. He also sent an email to the company’s audit committee, expressing similar concerns.
His email was forwarded to other members of the company, essentially “outing” his identity.
The ARB found that this breach of confidentiality violated Sarbanes-Oxley and remanded the case for further proceedings...
According to R. Scott Oswald, the managing partner of Washington, D.C.-based law firm The Employment Group, “this is a very significant ruling [because] for the first time, the act itself of revealing a whistleblower’s identity can be an adverse action under the statute.”
...The decision “shifts who is responsible for confidentiality,” said Richard Moberly, a professor at the University of Nebraska College of Law who has written about Sarbanes-Oxley and whistleblowers. “It is now the duty of the company to keep a whistleblower’s identity confidential.”
Anthony Menendez ...sent an email to Halliburton’s audit committee presenting the same issues in his SEC complaint. The email was forwarded to other employees, including the company’s general counsel, and in a subsequent document retention email to various employees Menendez was identified by name.
...the ARB...noted that under Section 301 of the statute, companies are required to establish procedures for “(A) the receipt, retention, and treatment of complaints received by the issuer regarding accounting, internal accounting controls, or auditing matters; or (B) the confidential, anonymous submission by employees of the issuer of concerns regarding questionable accounting or auditing matters.”
“We consider Section 301 a critical component of SOX,” the ARB said. “We agree with Menendez’s contention that the right to confidentiality Section 301 affords effectively establishes a ‘term and condition’ of employment … and that the exposure of Menendez’s identity in connection with his complaint to Halliburton’s Audit Committee constituted a violation of that employment term and condition.”
...Oswald said the decision adds “teeth” to existing confidentiality policies.
Although most companies have a policy that to maintain a whistleblower’s confidentiality, he said that in reality, many corporations do not maintain adequate internal controls over their disclosure protocols.
The Menendez decision provides additional incentives to employers to maintain confidentiality going forward...
...In addition to establishing that the act of breaching confidentiality is actionable, the decision also changes the standard for what constitutes an adverse action.
The ARB “articulated a more favorable iteration of adverse action than defined under other whistleblower statutes,” said Oswald.
As a practical matter, this more generous standard will allow more cases to survive summary judgment, he said.
...Westman noted that the language of the statute makes it clear that companies need to have a mechanism in place for anonymous or confidential reports...
...Westman said, employers have ...have a duty to retain documents related to an investigation, but they have to somehow instruct employees to retain all relevant documents – including communications with the person who made the complaint – without revealing the name of that person.
.
.
I believe OSHA's William Peterson may want to ask for any emails with "Hartzman" in them, from Wells Fargo, to determine the extent of the violation of confidentiality.
.
.
SEC and FINRA Whistleblower Evidence
If Union Bank and Trust in Oxford, NC disclosed Federal Reserve loans Wells Fargo didn't, how did Wells Fargo not violate Sarbanes Oxley?
Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi on George Hartzman's Whistleblower Filing
Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi "Secret and Lies of the Bailout"
Wells Fargo's attorney Gregory C. Keating re; Wells Fargo Advisors LLC / Hartzman / 4-3750-13-010
Hartzman versus Wells Fargo Advisors, Part One, including some emails from Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi
George v $WFC Part One, Scene Two; Hartzman emails to @MTaibbi on $JPM's #JamieDimon, with some Bloomberg's @bobivry
Wells Fargo v Hartzman DOL/OSHA Evidence, with some SARBOX info from Keating's "Retaliation and Whistleblowing"
On Whistleblower Protections and Wells Fargo's violation of George Hartzman's anonymity
Gregory Keating on Qualified Protected Activity Under SARBOX
I was wondering why Wells Fargo's attorney from Littler Mendelson didn't bring up "the right to confidentiality"
1 comment:
Very interesting case. I would like to see how this will turn out since the arguments of both sides have a point. There is much to be understood about the right to confidentiality though which is what makes this case very interesting. :)
- Stay123.com
Post a Comment