IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indlaw/v51y2022i1p62-83..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stigma and Whistleblowing: Should Punitive Damages be Available in Retaliation Cases?

Author

Listed:
  • David Lewis

Abstract

This article uses a range of disciplinary perspectives to examine what is meant by stigma and explains that it is a relational concept. It argues that there has been a shift from attributing social stigma to whistleblowing, to regarding whistleblowing as a form of prosocial behaviour, that is, something which contributes to the well-being of others. This shift is evidenced by the attempts to establish supportive organisational cultures through the introduction of specialist employer policies and procedures, the existence of protective legislation and the coverage of whistleblowing in the media. Although it is questioned why stigma should still attach to whistleblowing, it is acknowledged that those who suffer reprisals may well seek stigma damages. Thus the article traces the common law and statutory origins of stigma awards and discusses the appropriateness of exemplary/punitive damages in the employment field. In the conclusion, it is advocated that Parliament expressly provide for exemplary/punitive damages to be awarded in employment cases. In addition, practical suggestions are made about how a more positive attitude to whistleblowing can be achieved, including a possible role for criminal sanctions. The author asserts that a more punitive approach is justified because whistleblowing is an important aspect of the human right to freedom of expression which must be fully protected in order to ensure the proper functioning of a democratic society.

Suggested Citation

  • David Lewis, 2022. "Stigma and Whistleblowing: Should Punitive Damages be Available in Retaliation Cases?," Industrial Law Journal, Industrial Law Society, vol. 51(1), pages 62-83.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:51:y:2022:i:1:p:62-83.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/indlaw/dwaa032
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:51:y:2022:i:1:p:62-83.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ilj .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.