The United States Office of Special Counsel reported recently that it has reached a settlement with the GSA in regards to whistleblower protection for an individual who suffered retribution from exposing mismanagement of a GSA technology program.

The US Office of Special Counsel is a federal investigative and prosecutorial agency that enforces several federal acts, including the Whistleblower Protection Act. The GSA, or the General Services Administration, was established in 1949 by President Truman to govern and support the basic functioning of government agencies.

The GSA ran a program called the Technology Transformation Service. The former GSA Administrator, Denise Roth, has been accused of retaliating against Thomas Sharpe, Jr. who is the former commissioner of the GSA’s Federal Acquisitions Service.

He allegedly blew the whistle on mismanagement of the Technology Transformation Service. His former boss, Roth, has been accused of reducing the scope of his job and threatening to transfer him for speaking out.

The Office of Special Counsel sent a report to the White House and Congress regarding Sharpe’s whistleblower protection. The statement read, “On June 28, 2017, after reviewing the GSA OIG’s findings, OSC obtained relief for Mr. Sharpe, who entered into a settlement with the GSA to resolve his whistleblower retaliation claim.”

The whistleblower protection issues at hand in this situation happened as Sharpe expressed his concern regarding the money that was spent from a fund that he oversaw. This money was from the Acquisitions Service Fund which supported the Technology Transformation Service.

Sharpe began to voice his concern that money was being spent from the Technology Transformation Service in ways that were wrong. He did not support certain ways in which money was being spent nor new hiring that was taking place.

Roth, the then-director of the General Services Administration, and Sharpe became at odds with one another because, he claims, he voiced his concern over spending issues with the Technology Transformation Service.

He also believed that a spending structure that Roth had put into place within the Technology Transformation Service, one that allowed them to make spending decisions with Acquisitions Service Fund money independently, violated federal law. This illegal spending structure, he claims, gave him the responsibility of balancing Technology Transformation Service funds. This is something that he believed he had no control over.

This proposal, even though Sharpe had repeatedly voiced his concerns over the spending and spending structure, went forward via Roth’s request. Roth, Sharpe claims, continued to ask him to change his position on the issues and give his support to the plan. Sharpe refused, and became a whistleblower in speaking up.

Sharpe claims that Roth threatened to transfer him and other executives from his department, essentially firing him from his current position with claims that Roth accused him of not “playing ball.”

The Office of Special Counsel reports that Roth never actually did what she had threatened but she did remove much of Sharpe’s authority as commissioner and moved a lot of his responsibilities to one of her deputies.

If you or someone you know has suffered retribution from a whistleblower or qui tam incident, whistleblower protection or legal recourse may be an option.