12 U.S.C. § 1831j

Depository institution employee protection remedy

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 12 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In general(1) Employees of depository institutionsNo insured depository institution may discharge or otherwise discriminate against any employee with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because the employee (or any person acting pursuant to the request of the employee) provided information to any Federal banking agency or to the Attorney General regarding—(A) a possible violation of any law or regulation; or(B) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety;by the depository institution or any director, officer, or employee of the institution.(2) Employees of banking agenciesNo Federal banking agency, Federal home loan bank, Federal reserve bank, or any person who is performing, directly or indirectly, any function or service on behalf of the Corporation may discharge or otherwise discriminate against any employee with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because the employee (or any person acting pursuant to the request of the employee) provided information to any such agency or bank or to the Attorney General regarding any possible violation of any law or regulation, gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety by—(A) any depository institution or any such bank or agency;(B) any director, officer, or employee of any depository institution or any such bank;(C) any officer or employee of the agency which employs such employee; or(D) the person, or any officer or employee of the person, who employs such employee.(b) Enforcement

Any employee or former employee who believes he has been discharged or discriminated against in violation of subsection (a) may file a civil action in the appropriate United States district court before the close of the 2-year period beginning on the date of such discharge or discrimination. The complainant shall also file a copy of the complaint initiating such action with the appropriate Federal banking agency.

(c) RemediesIf the district court determines that a violation of subsection (a) has occurred, it may order the depository institution, Federal home loan bank, Federal Reserve bank, or Federal banking agency which committed the violation—(1) to reinstate the employee to his former position;(2) to pay compensatory damages; or(3) take other appropriate actions to remedy any past discrimination.(d) LimitationThe protections of this section shall not apply to any employee who—(1) deliberately causes or participates in the alleged violation of law or regulation; or(2) knowingly or recklessly provides substantially false information to such an agency or the Attorney General.(e) “Federal banking agency” defined

For purposes of subsections (a) and (c), the term “Federal banking agency” means the Corporation, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the Comptroller of the Currency.

(f) Burdens of proof

The legal burdens of proof that prevail under subchapter III of chapter 12 of title 5 shall govern adjudication of protected activities under this section.

(Sept. 21, 1950, ch. 967, § 2[33], as added Pub. L. 101–73, title IX, § 932(a), Aug. 9, 1989, 103 Stat. 494; amended Pub. L. 102–242, title II, § 251(a)(1)–(3), Dec. 19, 1991, 105 Stat. 2331, 2332; Pub. L. 103–204, § 21(a), Dec. 17, 1993, 107 Stat. 2406; Pub. L. 103–325, title VI, § 602(a)(61), (c), Sept. 23, 1994, 108 Stat. 2291; Pub. L. 111–203, title III, § 363(10), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1555.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2010—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 111–203 substituted “Federal Housing Finance Agency and the Comptroller of the Currency” for “Federal Housing Finance Board, the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision”.

1994—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103–325, § 602(c), amended directory language of Pub. L. 103–204, § 21(a). See 1993 Amendment note below.

Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 103–325, § 602(a)(61), substituted semicolon for comma at end.

Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 103–325, § 602(c)(1)–(3), amended directory language of Pub. L. 103–204, § 21(a)(1)(B). See 1993 Amendment note below.

1993—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 103–204, § 21(a)(1)(A), as amended by Pub. L. 103–325, § 602(c)(1)–(3), substituted “regarding—

“(A) a possible violation of any law or regulation; or

“(B) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety;

by the depository institution or any director, officer, or employee of the institution.” for “regarding any possible violation of any law or regulation by the depository institution or any director, officer, or employee of the institution.”

Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 103–204, § 21(a)(2)(A), (B), as amended by Pub. L. 103–325, § 602(c)(1), (2), (4), in introductory provisions, substituted “Federal reserve bank, or any person who is performing, directly or indirectly, any function or service on behalf of the Corporation” for “or Federal Reserve bank” and “any possible violation of any law or regulation, gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety by” for “any possible violation of any law or regulation by”.

Subsec. (a)(2)(D). Pub. L. 103–204, § 21(a)(2)(C)–(E), as amended by Pub. L. 103–325, § 602(c)(1), (2), (4), added subpar. (D).

Subsec. (f). Pub. L. 103–204, § 21(a)(1)(B), as amended by Pub. L. 103–325, § 602(c)(1)–(3), added subsec. (f).

1991—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 102–242, § 251(a)(1), amended subsec. (a) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (a) read as follows: “No federally insured depository institution may discharge or otherwise discriminate against any employee with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because the employee (or any person acting pursuant to the request of the employee) provided information to any Federal banking agency or to the Attorney General regarding a possible violation of any law or regulation by the depository institution or any of its officers, directors, or employees.”

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 102–242, § 251(a)(2), inserted “, Federal home loan bank, Federal Reserve bank, or Federal banking agency”.

Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 102–242, § 251(a)(3), added subsec. (e).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2010 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–203 effective on the transfer date, see section 351 of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as a note under section 906 of Title 2, The Congress.

Effective Date of 1991 Amendment

Pub. L. 102–242, title II, § 251(a)(4), Dec. 19, 1991, 105 Stat. 2332, provided that: “Paragraph (2) of section 33(a) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act [12 U.S.C. 1831j(a)(2)] (as added under the amendment made by paragraph (1)) shall be treated as having taken effect on January 1, 1987, and for purposes of any cause of action arising under such paragraph (as so effective) before the date of the enactment of this Act [Dec. 19, 1991], the 2-year period referred to in section 33(b) of such Act shall be deemed to begin on such date of enactment.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 60 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: Fasano v. Fed. Reserve Bank, 457 F.3d 274 (3rd Cir. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fasano v. Fed. Reserve Bank, 457 F.3d 274 (3rd Cir. 2006). · cites it 23× “In Part A to follow, we lay out the boundaries of the main preemptive language contained in the Federal Reserve Act, as implicitly amended by the ADA and the federal banking whistleblower statute, 12 U.S.C. § 1831j. In Part B, we adopt the holding of courts which have found…”

Rouse v. Farmers State Bank of Jewell, Iowa, 866 F. Supp. 1191 (N.D. Iowa 1994). · cites it 18× “The officer’s complaint alleges discharge in violation of a federal “whistle-blower” protection statute, 12 U.S.C. § 1831j, and state law claims of wrongful discharge, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, age discrimination, and infliction of emotional distress.”

Marc Wiersum v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 785 F.3d 483 (11th Cir. 2015). · cites it 7× “§ 5567 within § 1057 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010; his termination was contrary to 12 U.S.C. § 1831j, according a national-bank employee whistleblower protection only if a complaint procedurally first was made to the appropriate…”

Fenno v. Mountain West Bank, 2008 MT 267 (Mont. 2008). · cites it 16× “§ 1831j, Congress stated that its purpose was, among other things, “[t]o strengthen the enforcement powers of Federal regulators of depository institutions” and “[t]o strengthen the civil sanctions and criminal penalties for defrauding or otherwise damaging depository…”

Kell v. Iberville Bank, 352 F. Supp. 3d 650 (E.D. La. 2018). · cites it 8× “Second, Defendant argues that only one whistleblower statute can apply, and because 12 U.S.C. § 1831j does apply, 31 U.S.C. § 5328 does not.”

Hicks v. Resolution Trust Corp., 767 F. Supp. 167 (N.D. Ill. 1991). · cites it 13× “§§ 1985 (3) and 1986 for conspiracy to violate plaintiff’s civil rights (Count I), a claim under 12 U.S.C. § 1831j for violation of the Depository Institution Employee Protection Remedy (“whistle blower statute”) (Count II), and a pendent state law claim for intentional…”

Richardson v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 248 F. Supp. 3d 91 (D.D.C. 2017). · cites it 10× “; the whistleblower provision of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), 12 U.S.C. § 1831j; the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.”

Richard Oldroyd v. Elmira Sav. Bank, Fsb, 134 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1998). · cites it 4× “In May of 1996, Oldroyd brought an action in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, alleging retaliatory discharge under 12 U.S.C. § 1831j, the whistleblower protection provision of FIR-REA.”

Segarra v. Fed. Reserve Bank, 17 F. Supp. 3d 304 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). · cites it 10× “In the instant action she asserts that Defendants violated the whistleblower protection provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”), 12 U.S.C. § 1831j, and raises various state law claims.”

Rosemary Frobose v. Am. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Danville, a State Chartered Federally Insured Sav. & Loan, 152 F.3d 602 (7th Cir. 1998). · cites it 4× “She filed suit pursuant to the whistleblower protection provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1831j(a), asserting a number of state law claims in addition to her federal retaliation claim.”

Russell Lippert v. Cmty. Bank, Inc., 438 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2006). · cites it 4× “Lippert argues that Community Bank fired him in retaliation for protected whistleblowing, in violation of 12 U.S.C. § 1831j. We reverse the district court and remand for further proceedings.”

Burford v. Yellen, 246 F. Supp. 3d 161 (D.D.C. 2017). · cites it 3× “Count 7 is a harder question, Defendant moves to dismiss because the statute of limitations to bring claims under 12 U.S.C. § 1831j has expired. See Mot. at 15.”

Show all 60 citing cases →

— 12 U.S.C. § 1831j(1)(a) — 1 case

Fenno v. Mountain West Bank, 2008 MT 267 (Mont. 2008). “§ 1831j, Congress stated that its purpose was, among other things, “[t]o strengthen the enforcement powers of Federal regulators of depository institutions” and “[t]o strengthen the civil sanctions and criminal penalties for defrauding or otherwise damaging depository…”

— 12 U.S.C. § 1831j(a) — 12 cases

Rouse v. Farmers State Bank of Jewell, Iowa, 866 F. Supp. 1191 (N.D. Iowa 1994). “The officer’s complaint alleges discharge in violation of a federal “whistle-blower” protection statute, 12 U.S.C. § 1831j, and state law claims of wrongful discharge, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, age discrimination, and infliction of emotional distress.”

Rosemary Frobose v. Am. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Danville, a State Chartered Federally Insured Sav. & Loan, 152 F.3d 602 (7th Cir. 1998). “She filed suit pursuant to the whistleblower protection provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1831j(a), asserting a number of state law claims in addition to her federal retaliation claim.”

Hicks v. Resolution Trust Corp., 767 F. Supp. 167 (N.D. Ill. 1991). “§§ 1985 (3) and 1986 for conspiracy to violate plaintiff’s civil rights (Count I), a claim under 12 U.S.C. § 1831j for violation of the Depository Institution Employee Protection Remedy (“whistle blower statute”) (Count II), and a pendent state law claim for intentional…”

Kell v. Iberville Bank, 352 F. Supp. 3d 650 (E.D. La. 2018). “Second, Defendant argues that only one whistleblower statute can apply, and because 12 U.S.C. § 1831j does apply, 31 U.S.C. § 5328 does not.”

Hill v. Mr. Money Fin. Co., 491 F. Supp. 2d 725 (N.D. Ohio 2007).

— 12 U.S.C. § 1831j(a)(1) — 4 cases

Marc Wiersum v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 785 F.3d 483 (11th Cir. 2015). “§ 5567 within § 1057 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010; his termination was contrary to 12 U.S.C. § 1831j, according a national-bank employee whistleblower protection only if a complaint procedurally first was made to the appropriate…”

Fruge v. Powell (D.D.C. 2022).

Bowen v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n (D. Minnesota 2020).

— 12 U.S.C. § 1831j(a)(2) — 11 cases

Segarra v. Fed. Reserve Bank, 802 F.3d 409 (2d Cir. 2015).

Fasano v. Fed. Reserve Bank, 457 F.3d 274 (3rd Cir. 2006). “In Part A to follow, we lay out the boundaries of the main preemptive language contained in the Federal Reserve Act, as implicitly amended by the ADA and the federal banking whistleblower statute, 12 U.S.C. § 1831j. In Part B, we adopt the holding of courts which have found…”

Segarra v. Fed. Reserve Bank, 17 F. Supp. 3d 304 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). “In the instant action she asserts that Defendants violated the whistleblower protection provisions of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”), 12 U.S.C. § 1831j, and raises various state law claims.”

Walleri v. Fed. Home Loan Bank of Seattle, 965 F. Supp. 1459 (D. Or. 1997).

Doe v. Fed. Deposit Ins., 545 F. App'x 6 (2d Cir. 2013).

— 12 U.S.C. § 1831j(a)(l) — 6 cases

Russell Lippert v. Cmty. Bank, Inc., 438 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2006). “Lippert argues that Community Bank fired him in retaliation for protected whistleblowing, in violation of 12 U.S.C. § 1831j. We reverse the district court and remand for further proceedings.”

Jose v. Norwest Bank North Dakota, N.A., 1999 ND 175 (N.D. 1999).

— 12 U.S.C. § 1831j(a)(l)(A) — 1 case

Simas v. First Citizens' Fed. Credit Union, 996 F. Supp. 76 (D. Mass. 1998).

— 12 U.S.C. § 1831j(b) — 10 cases

Burford v. Yellen, 246 F. Supp. 3d 161 (D.D.C. 2017). “Count 7 is a harder question, Defendant moves to dismiss because the statute of limitations to bring claims under 12 U.S.C. § 1831j has expired. See Mot. at 15.”

Blab T v. of Mobile, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, Inc., 182 F.3d 851 (11th Cir. 1999).

Hicks v. Resolution Trust Corp., 738 F. Supp. 279 (N.D. Ill. 1990).

— 12 U.S.C. § 1831j(c) — 4 cases

Foley v. Coastal Cmty. Fed. Credit Union (S.D. Tex. 2020).

— 12 U.S.C. § 1831j(d) — 3 cases

Hicks v. Resolution Trust Corp., 970 F.2d 378 (7th Cir. 1992).

— 12 U.S.C. § 1831j(d)(2) — 1 case

— 12 U.S.C. § 1831j(d)(l) — 1 case

— 12 U.S.C. § 1831j(e) — 1 case

Michael J. Haley v. Nicolas P. Retsinas, 138 F.3d 1245 (8th Cir. 1998).

— 12 U.S.C. § 1831j(f) — 3 cases

Haley v. Fiechter, 953 F. Supp. 1085 (E.D. Mo. 1997).

Fruge v. Powell (D.D.C. 2022).

— 12 U.S.C. § 1831j(l)(a) — 1 case

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.