Paula Price was fired for “whistleblowing” dishonest practice, and is suing her former employer, Automative Research & Testing (ARTI), for violating the whistleblower protection provisions of the Automobile Manufacture Integrity Act of 2014 (AMIA). Price was a contractor for Ford Motor Corporation (FMC). The primary focus of this case is the interpretation of the word “employee” in § 114(a)(1) of the AMIA and whether it includes contractors. Before analyzing the interpretation of the statute itself, it is crucial to consider whether Congress delegated authority to the Occupational Protection Administration (OPA) and if it followed necessary procedure during implementation. After interpreting the relevant material, I will either recommend how
…show more content…
Also, the AMIA was a direct response to an increase of public and EPA outrage, and Congress wanted to ensure employees had whistleblower protection to hold companies in compliance to legal and ethical standards. This case is similar to King v. Burwell, where there is an important major question involved and the court had to decide who should interpret. However, the difference in this case is that Congress has clearly delegated to the agency in §114(b) when stating the procedure for enforcement. Congress typically delegates enforcement of whistle-blower protection in the U.S to the OPA, which they clearly did in this …show more content…
The spirit of the law is to protect the public and environment from harmful practice. The court would ultimately go through the same interpretation, except it would test to see if the agency’s interpretation should be given any weight. The court would look at the thoroughness evident in its consideration, validity of its reasoning, it consistency with other pronouncements, and the factors that allowed it to persuade if it could not control. In this case, there is not enough evidence to really factor in the weight of the OPAs interpretation. The agency did not go through adjudication and there was no basis given for their notice and comment on their FAQ. I believe the research and reasoning to treat contractors the same as employees of the automobile manufacture is necessary for the court to include the agency’s
Also, the AMIA was a direct response to an increase of public and EPA outrage, and Congress wanted to ensure employees had whistleblower protection to hold companies in compliance to legal and ethical standards. This case is similar to King v. Burwell, where there is an important major question involved and the court had to decide who should interpret. However, the difference in this case is that Congress has clearly delegated to the agency in §114(b) when stating the procedure for enforcement. Congress typically delegates enforcement of whistle-blower protection in the U.S to the OPA, which they clearly did in this …show more content…
The spirit of the law is to protect the public and environment from harmful practice. The court would ultimately go through the same interpretation, except it would test to see if the agency’s interpretation should be given any weight. The court would look at the thoroughness evident in its consideration, validity of its reasoning, it consistency with other pronouncements, and the factors that allowed it to persuade if it could not control. In this case, there is not enough evidence to really factor in the weight of the OPAs interpretation. The agency did not go through adjudication and there was no basis given for their notice and comment on their FAQ. I believe the research and reasoning to treat contractors the same as employees of the automobile manufacture is necessary for the court to include the agency’s