Reporting Violations and Protection from Retaliation
We will report all known or suspected improper governmental activities under the provisions of the University's Whistleblower Policy, recognizing that everyone is protected from retaliation for making such reports under the Whistleblower Retaliation Policy-
This means that each member of the campus community
- Is protected from retaliation for reporting improper governmental activities
Perspective: A Real World Illustration
A February 2005 Advocate (Baton Rouge, Louisiana) newspaper article reported on a lawsuit filed by a former employee of a public university located in Louisiana claiming she was forced to resign after complaining about mistreatment of animals at the university's primate center.
The former employee lists in her suit a series of complaints she claims to have lodged with supervisors about the way chimpanzees and other primates were treated in the center.
Her allegations include some chimpanzees having their paws burned by lighters; another doused with scalding water, and monkeys in outdoor cages dying from cold weather because they were insufficiently protected from the elements.
The center is a primate facility run by the university that breeds nonhuman primates and provides pre-clinical safety testing and evaluations of pharmaceuticals and biotechnology products.
In the state district court suit, the employee said that she has worked in the animal research field for more than 20 years, and worked at the center from September 2002 until her resignation in February 2004.
The former employee alleges in the suit that she "blew the whistle" on several instances in which practices or actions at the center violated federal animal law, animal cruelty law and standards of employee safety.
A written statement released by the university said that all the allegations brought up by the former employee in the suit were investigated, and the university is "pleased with what was learned.”
The statement listed the investigating agencies as the university's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, the Office for Laboratory Animal Welfare with the National Institutes for Health, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The former employee's claims in the suit beyond her allegations of specific incidents with the animals include statements that officials with the center did not take follow-up action on her complaints and recommendations.
She says in the suit that, in the case of the worker who allegedly burned chimpanzees with lighters and scalded one with water, she fired the worker responsible, but officials at the center neither called on law enforcement to follow neither up with a criminal case against the worker nor approved her plan to calm the chimpanzees that had been traumatized.
The former employee says in the suit that, when she met with the center director to voice her concerns, "he said that her concerns would not be addressed by NIRC, and, if she had a problem with that, she should quit."
She claims that, when she complained in writing in February 2003 about the proposed relocation of the 3-year-old chimpanzees, she was forced to resign for the following reasons: demonstrating poor judgment, failure to follow proper chain of command, failure to comply with counseling, threatening the security of the center and insubordination.
The former employee's lawsuit claims her employment was terminated as retaliation for her attempts to "blow the whistle" on center activities and that her free speech rights were violated.
The university issued a statement that the primate center received accreditation from the Association for Assessment and Accreditation for Laboratory Animal Care, and was last evaluated in 2003.
Last Revised 5/23/2006