28 C.F.R. § 27.1

Making a protected disclosure

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) When an employee of, or applicant for employment with, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (FBI employee) makes a disclosure of information to a supervisor in the direct chain of command of the employee, up to and including the Attorney General; to the Department of Justice's (Department's) Office of the Inspector General (OIG), the Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility (FBI OPR), or the FBI Inspection Division (FBI-INSD) (collectively, Receiving Offices); to Congress as described in 5 U.S.C. 7211; to the Office of Special Counsel; or to an employee of any of the foregoing entities when designated by any officer, employee, office, or division named in this subsection for the purpose of receiving such disclosures, the disclosure will be a “protected disclosure” if the person making it reasonably believes that it evidences:

(1) Any violation of any law, rule or regulation; or

(2) Gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.

(b) Any office or official (other than the OIG or OPR) receiving a protected disclosure shall promptly report such disclosure to the OIG or OPR for investigation. The OIG and OPR shall proceed in accordance with procedures establishing their respective jurisdiction. The OIG or OPR may refer such allegations to FBI-INSD Internal Investigations Section for investigation unless the Deputy Attorney General determines that such referral shall not be made.

(c) To be a “protected disclosure” under this part, the disclosure must be made to an office or official specified in paragraph (a) of this section.

[Order No. 2926-2008, 73 FR 1495, Jan. 9, 2008, as amended by Order No. 5872-2024, 89 FR 7284, Feb. 2, 2024]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2005–2018 · leading case: Runkle v. Gonzales, 391 F. Supp. 2d 210 (D.D.C. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Runkle v. Gonzales, 391 F. Supp. 2d 210 (D.D.C. 2005). · cites it 3× “See 28 C.F.R. § 27.1 (a). The defendants argue that because the plaintiff reported his safety concern "through the ombudsman” to the Office of the FBI Director — one of the offices listed in § 27.”

Siuzdak v. Sessions, 295 F. Supp. 3d 77 (D. Conn. 2018). · cites it 2× “Siuizdak filed a whistleblower complaint with the FBI's Office of the Inspector General under *91 28 C.F.R. § 27.1 (a). 12 O'Neill Decl. ¶ 3, Def.”

United States v. Stevens, 593 F. Supp. 2d 177 (D.D.C. 2009). “Should you come to believe that you have been subjected to or threatened with any such reprisal, please contact either this or any other office identified as a “Receiving Office” in 28 C.F.R. § 27.1 for reconsideration of the matter.”

United States v. Stevens, 715 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2009). “Should you come to believe that you have been subjected to or threatened with any such reprisal, please contact either this or any other office identified as a “Receiving Office” in 28 C.F.R. § 27.1 for reconsideration of the matter.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.