In Department of Homeland Sec. v. MacLean, 135 S. Ct. 913 (2015), Robert J. MacLean became a federal air marshal for the TSA in 2001. In that role, MacLean was assigned to protect passenger flights from potential hijackings.
And the Supreme Court’s decision clears the way for the Second Circuit’s consideration of the LIBOR dispute’s merits, with possible implications for a number of other pending cases alleging manipulation of various financial benchmarks. Other Cases of Interest Continuing its trend of expanding whistleblower protections, the Court in Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean (decided on January 21, 2015) held that a federal air marshal who publicly disclosed that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) had decided to cut costs by removing air marshals from certain long-distance flights is entitled to protection under the federal whistleblower statute because his disclosure does not fall within the statute’s exception for disclosures “specifically prohibited by law.” The disclosure was prohibited by a TSA regulation, not by a statute, and the Court held this regulatory prohibition insufficient to satisfy the exception.
Dep’tof Homeland Sec. v. MacLean, 574 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 913 (2015) Robert J. MacLean became a federal air marshal for the TSA in 2001. In that role, MacLean was assigned to protect passenger flights from potential hijackings.
Workers Compensation/Occupational Safety and DiseaseCarver v. Colvin (10th Cir., January 20, 2015) (affirming denial of supplemental security income) Contract/Noncompete/Trade Secret/Wrongful TerminationVelez v. DeBry & Associates (Utah Ct. App., January 23, 2015) (affirming the lower court's finding that res judicata barred Velez from litigating his claim in district court because he failed to bring it up in arbitration)Public Employees/EmployersKuhn v. Retirement Board (Utah Ct. App., January 23, 2015) (affirming denial of coverage under the Public Employees' Health Program)Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean (U.S., January 21, 2015) (Whistleblower protection applies unless the disclosure at issue is specifically prohibited by law.)
Strictly construing the Whistleblower Protection Act (“WPA”) against the employer (here, the government) and in favor of the employee, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled a federal air marshal’s whistleblower claim may proceed even though he had leaked confidential air security plans to the media in apparent violation of a regulation. Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean, No. 13- 894 (U.S. Jan. 21, 2015). The Court was not swayed by the government’s effort to broadly interpret an exception to the WPA to exclude the employee from whistleblower protection.
On January 21st, the Supreme Court affirmed a former air marshal's right to whistleblower protection relating to his leaking of air security plans to the media. The 7-2 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts in the case, Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean, No. 13-894 (U.S. January 21, 2015), represents a rare victory for government whistleblowers who expose dangers to public health or safety. The case involved Robert MacLean, a former air marshal who flew undercover and armed, to protect passengers flights from potential hijackings.