top of page

Market Research Group

Public·11 members

The Reprisal

The Department of Defense (DoD) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) handles civilian and military reprisal cases for all DoD subcomponent agencies. If you would like to make a reprisal complaint, please see the DoD Hotline website at , and visit the 'Reprisal Complaints' page for additional information.

The Reprisal

Civilian Reprisal DOD civilian employees (appropriated fund) may file reprisal complaints with the DoD IG Directorate for Civilian Reprisal Investigations (CRI), via the Defense Hotline. CRI investigates complaints of reprisal consistent with Subchapter II, Chapter 12 of 5 U.S.C. 2302, and 7 of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as implemented by DoD Directive 5106.01.

Contractor Reprisal All DOD contractor employees must report allegations of whistleblower reprisal directly to the DoD OIG (via the DoD Defense Hotline), pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2409 (and either 48 C.F.R. 3.9 or Defense Acquisition Regulations System Subpart 203.9).

French and Russian POW's stroll about the prison compound at the reprisal camp at Szczuezyn in Lithuania in 1916. Both the Allied and Central Powers found that reprisal camps had dubious effects on the foreign and military policies of their opponents.

Retaliation (a.k.a. "reprisal") means treating employees badly because they complained about discrimination on the job, filed a discrimination charge or complaint, or participated in any manner in an employment discrimination proceeding. Retaliation includes mistreatment for raising discrimination that affects others (e.g., if a man complains about sexual harassment of women, mistreating him is retaliation). It also includes mistreatment of workers closely related to someone who has complained (e.g., if a worker's spouse filed an EEOC charge, both the worker and his spouse can claim retaliation for actions taken against the worker to deter the spouse's EEO activity). Retaliation for complaining about conduct that does not involve employment discrimination, such as union activity or workers compensation, is not prohibited by EEOCenforced laws (although other laws may apply).

If an IRS employee determines that providing the advance notice or a record of a specific contact to a taxpayer may result in a reprisal -- an act of revenge or retaliation -- against any person, then the following actions should be taken:

Complete a separate Form 12175, Third-Party Contact Report Form, to report the contact. Include the taxpayer's TIN and name control, the employee number, phone number, stop number, the date of the contact, category code, tax periods, MFTs and check the reprisal box.

To protect the provider of the information, make any reprisal situation very apparent in the case history with the facts surrounding the reason for the reprisal determination, and consult with his or her manager, if needed. Information that could disclose the identity of the third party should not be in the case history, it should be in a confidential envelope and clearly marked.

Care must be taken to make sure information about persons fearing reprisal is not inadvertently disclosed. Therefore, information in the case file disclosing the identity of the third party should be placed in a confidential envelope and clearly marked.

In some situations you can make a determination based on the case history that a person could be subject to reprisal if the taxpayer received the advance notice or notice of a particular TPC. In these situations, sending the advance notice or notice of a particular contact is not required if doing so may result in reprisal against any person.

A potentially dangerous taxpayer (PDT) indicator alone is not a sufficient basis for determining that sending the advance notice may result in reprisal against any person. However, the employee may be aware of other facts in a particular case from which a determination can be made that sending the advance notice Letter 3164 may result in reprisal.

If the determination cannot be made based upon the facts already known, advise the third party that by law the IRS is required to provide his/her name to the taxpayer as a TPC and ask if there is a fear of reprisal.

Advise the third party that his or her name will be placed on a list of third parties contacted and provided to the taxpayer if requested. Do not make the reprisal inquiry in a way that would influence the third party. The following suggested language may be used as part of direct TPC:

"By law I am required to include your name on a list of parties we have contacted. This list will be sent to (taxpayer's name). If you believe that including your name on the list may result in reprisal against any person, we can exclude you from the list.Do you have any reason to believe that reprisal against any person may occur?"

If the third party does indicate fear of reprisal, document the case file, and prepare Form 12175 as outlined above. Any concern raised by the third party with respect to reprisal will be taken at face value.

"If you have any reason to believe that reprisal against any person may occur, you should call me at the telephone number listed above by (insert a date that is 10 calendar days from the day the letter is mailed). "

Prepare a new Form 12175 to reflect the reprisal determination and write "amended" on the top right portion of the form. Submit the new form with a copy of the previously completed Form 12175 to the TPC Coordinator or input personnel by email or fax communication notifying of amended Form 12175.

Do not provide information to any persons that may result in the taxpayer learning the identity of a third party who has indicated a fear of reprisal. This information may be provided to Service employees acting within the scope of their duties, including employees of the Office of Chief Counsel.

Scope: Section 1553 of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act outlines the procedures and guidelines for protecting state and local government and contractor whistleblowers that are employees of any non-Federal employer receiving covered funds. It stipulates that such employees may not be discharged, demoted, or otherwise discriminated against as a reprisal for disclosing to the Board, an inspector general, the Comptroller General, a member of Congress, a State or Federal regulatory or law enforcement agency, a person with supervisory authority over the employee, a court or grand jury, the head of a Federal agency, or their representatives, information that the employee reasonably believes is evidence of gross mismanagement of an agency contract or grant relating to covered funds; a gross waste of covered funds; a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety related to the implementation or use of covered funds; an abuse of authority related to the implementation or use of covered funds; or a violation of law, rule, or regulation related to an agency contract or grant, awarded or issued relating to covered funds.

The Québec Ombudsman pledges to protect the confidentiality of the information transmitted. Under the Act respecting access to documents held by public bodies and the Protection of personal information, the information obtained or created by the Québec Ombudsman in the context of verification or investigation as the result of a reprisal complaint cannot be communicated.

Do you feel that you have suffered reprisal because of a disclosure or because you collaborated in an investigation into a disclosure? Has someone threatened you to prevent you from making a disclosure or from participating in an investigation? The Act to facilitate the disclosure of wrongdoings relating to public bodies protects you.

On February 14, 1984, during the pendency of the appeal, plaintiff filed a formal administrative complaint alleging that the EEO coordinator handling the case "coerc[ed], interfer[ed] and restrain[ed]" the plaintiff from pursuing his original complaint. He further contended that such action was in reprisal for his having filed the original complaint. Those allegations stemmed from plaintiff's dissatisfaction with the EEO coordinator's handling of the complaint. On April 13, 1984, the Agency issued a decision which, relying on EEO management bulletin 107 (EEO-MB-107), rejected the February 14, 1984, reprisal complaint.[1] The effect of this was to incorporate the reprisal complaint into the original complaint. The plaintiff appealed that decision to the EEOC, arguing that the original complaint and the reprisal complaint should have been considered separately. The EEOC found that the reprisal complaint was a spinoff of the original *1006 complaint and, in reliance on EEO-MB-107, upheld the joint processing.

The reprisal actions with which we are concerned fall into three categories. First, students suspected of having supported the Gezi Protests are reportedly being denied scholarship assistance on the grounds of protected activities involving the non-violent expression of political opinions. Second, there have been credible reports that at least one university is requiring undergraduate students to answer a questionnaire concerning their support for protests and their voting preferences prior to enrolling in courses. Third, faculty members, academics and scholars who have publicly expressed their support for the Gezi Protests have reportedly faced inappropriate disciplinary action. Such actions evince a disregard for principles of academic freedom and freedom of thought and expression that exacerbate a climate of intimidation resulting from the recent spate of government arrests of academics, researchers, journalists and publishers that formed part of the background to the grievances expressed in the Gezi Protests.

Finally, we ask that your government take all necessary steps to protect researchers, scholars and faculty members from unfair reprisal actions by university administrations on the grounds of their political opinions. In particular, we ask that an investigation be undertaken by appropriate officials in the Turkish Higher Education Council as to the actions by the Uludağ University administration against Professor Köprülü with a view to terminating any disciplinary investigation and reversing any punitive measures adopted against Professor Köprülü. We also urge you to take note of mounting international condemnation of the erosion of democratic rights and freedoms in Turkey.


Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...
bottom of page