Whoever subjects someone to surveillance, or gives the impression of surveillance, in retaliation for protected activity may be subject to injunctive relief in federal courts, ordering them to cease and desist.
- "whistleblowers often face some type of surveillance from either the government, the industry, or some other private investigator. The experience can be very frightening and can add an ominous presence to the misery of blowing the whistle.... We often advise that if someone is watching you, he or she wants you to become affected by the surveillance and to act irrationally about it. It can be another way of bullying you into a mistake." Government Accountability Project, et al. Courage Without Martyrdom -- A Survival Guide for Whistleblowers 5 (1989)(Emphasis added).
Will ethical EPA employees report this outrage to the Inspector General? Will they and their union(s) request a remedy for surveillance or giving the impression of surveillance, in order to halt future lawbreaking. See Consolidated Edison Company, 4 NLRB 71, 94 (1937), enforced, 305 U.S. 197 (1938); Atlas Underwear Co. v. NLRB, 116 F.2d 1020, 1023 (6th Cir. 1941); NLRB v. Ford Motor Co., 119 F.2d 326 (5th Cir. 1941); Press Co. v. NLRB, 118 F.2d 937 (D.C. Cir. 1940), cert. denied 61 S.Ct. 1118; NLRB v. Baldwin Locomotive Works, 128 F.2d 39, 49 (3d Cir. 1942); NLRB v. Jasper Chair Co., 138 F.2d 756 (7th Cir. 1943); NLRB v. Collins & Aikman Corp., 146 F.2d 454, 455 (4th Cir. 1944); NLRB v. Anchorage Times Publishing Co., 637 F.2d 1359, 1365-6 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 835 (1981); NLRB v. Randall P. Kane Co., 581 F.2d 1124, 1131 (9th Cir. 1978); NLRB v. Squire Shops, Inc., 559 F.2d 486, 487 (9th Cir. 1977); NLRB v. Miller Redwood Co., 407 F.2d 215, 218 (9th Cir. 1978); NLRB v. Intertherm, 596 F.2d 267 (8th Cir. 1979); Russell Stover Candies, Inc. v. NLRB, 551 F.2d 204, 207 (8th Cir. 1977); NLRB v. Speed Queen, 469 F.2d 189, 191 (8th Cir. 1973); NLRB v. Hawthorn Co., 404 F.2d 1205, 1208-09 (8th Cir. 1969); Olsen Rug Co. v. NLRB, 304 F.2d 710, 714-15 (7th Cir. 1962); NLRB v. Tidelands Marine Service, 339 F.2d 291 (5th Cir. 1964); National Phosphate Corp., 211 NLRB 567 (1974); Fotomat Corp., 207 NLRB 461 (1973); J.P. Stevens & Co., 245 NLRB 198 (1979); Laidlaw Waste Systems, 305 NLRB No. 5 (1991); Local 309, United Furniture Workers v. Gates, 75 F.Supp. 620, 625-26 (N.D. Ind. 1948); Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago, 742 F.2d 1007 (7th Cir. 1984); Handschu v. Special Services Divn, 349 F.Supp. 766 (S.D.N.Y. 1972);Presbyterian Church (USA) v. United States, 870 F.2d 518 (9th Cir. 1989); Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends v. Tate, 519 F.2d 1335 (3d Cir. 1975); Paton v. LaPrade, 524 F.2d 862 (3d Cir. 1975); Cf. Fr. Robert F. Drinan, "First Amendment Endangered" (book review by one of my mentors, who chaired the ABA Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities for one of the two years that I served as YLD Liaison member of its Council), 78 Geo L.J. 2057 (1990).
Injunctive relief, damages and attorney fees might be ordered against EPA Administrator SCOTT PRUITT and EPA to make them cease and desist surveillance or giving the impression of surveillance. Otherwise, "[o]nly a brave soul would dare to express anything other than orthodoxy under such circumstances." White v. Davis, 120 Cal. Rptr. 94 (1975).
E.P.A. Employees Spoke Out. Then Came Scrutiny of Their Email.
By Eric Lipton and Lisa Friedman
The New York Times
December 17, 2017