Another Wal-Mart Whistleblower Claims Rights Violated, As Company Brings Aboard Scalia

For Immediate Release
Friday, June 10, 2005

Washington, D.C., June 10, 2005 – Today, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette reports that another former Wal-Mart employee will file a federal complaint against the company, alleging violations of whistleblower protections.  And this week, Wal-Mart revealed it has hired Washington DC-based attorney Eugene Scalia to defend the company against mounting charges of whistleblower abuses.  Scalia, son of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and former Inspector General at the Department of Labor (DOL), is known for his anti-worker ideology.  Given Scalia’s controversial positions, in 2002 President Bush installed him to the DOL post via a recess appointment, skirting congressional approval. 

Wal-Mart Watch Executive Director Andrew Grossman said, “By bringing aboard Eugene Scalia, Wal-Mart has abandoned any pretense of appearing even-handed in its treatment of whistleblowers.  As the nation’s largest private employer, Wal-Mart has chosen to send an ominous signal to millions of workers that their rights may be even more imperiled.”

Dallas-based attorney Steve Kardell said he will file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor today alleging that Wal-Mart violated federal law when it fired employee Rickey Armstrong in March. Armstrong worked at Wal-Mart’s Optical Plant in Dallas, a facility that makes prescription eyeglasses, according to a document provided by Kardell. Armstrong reported corporate wrongdoing at the plant and was fired weeks later, Kardell said.  [Arkansas Democrat Gazette, 6/10/05]

With a career of protecting big businesses, Scalia’s tenure at the Labor Department was marked by controversies – from his blueprints to gut overtime regulations, opposition to regulations preventing workplace injuries, to his deep ties to conservative activists – it is no surprise that Wal-Mart’s board of directors would turn to Scalia to inoculate their financial interests at the expense of workers’ rights. 

Scalia Working to Undermine Whistleblower Law:

Sarbanes-Oxley Law Aimed at Protecting Whistle-Blowers, But Forced Arbitration Undermines the Law. Securities Week reported, “[I]ndustry observers believe that efforts to require arbitration circumvent the true intent of Sarbanes-Oxley, which is to offer greater protections to industry employees--especially whistle-blowers--than they had received before it was drafted. Critics of the arbitration system believe that it is stacked against plaintiffs and industry employees as it is mainly funded by the very securities industry it judges.” [Securities Week, 8/9/04]

Eugene Scalia Sides Against Workers and Backs Forced Arbitration. Eugene Scalia said that whistle-blower cases are no different than other statutory violations, and Sarbanes-Oxley “does permit binding arbitration as a means of dispute (resolution).” [Securities Week, 8/9/04]

Scalia Moved to Disallow Certain Whistleblower Rights. During his tenure as Solicitor General of the Department of Labor, Eugene Scalia limited the ability of workers to get whistleblower protection for communications with Congress. Scalia said that whistleblowers were protected against retaliation only if they disclosed information to a Member of Congress, whereas the law was intended to also cover contacts with a “duly authorized” investigative committee of Congress.  After he left the Department of Labor, the Acting Solicitor Howard M. Radzely reversed the Scalia’s position. [Washington Post, 1/28/03]

Experts Believe Scalia’s Position was Aimed at Defending Corporate America. According to the Washington Post, “Whistle-blower advocates said Scalia was attempting to use the case, which concerns whistle-blower provisions in environmental protection laws, to establish a precedent that would undermine whistle-blowers in cases against corporations.” [Washington Post, 1/28/03]

Republican Senator Denounced Scalia’s Interpretation of Whistleblower Law. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who wrote the law that outlines whistleblower protections in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, criticized Scalia’s position. “If this is the way the Labor Department intends to enforce the new law, then most corporate whistle-blowers won’t be protected,” Grassley said. [Washington Post, 10/25/02]