10-01-2014, 04:56 AM
Interesting linked article in the piece. It states: "The judge, Ronnie Abrams, said in her ruling that the examiner, Carmen M. Segarra, failed to prove that her firing was directly related to her finding that the bank had exhibited certain questionable ethics practices, including a lack of internal conflict-of-interest policies.
“The law only protects those who adequately allege that they have suffered retaliation for providing information regarding a possible violation of a ‘law or regulation,’ as distinct from what the law treats as advisory guidance,” the judge wrote. “Plaintiff has not done so here.” (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/judge-dismisses-examiners-suit-against-new-york-fed/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1)
So, because the Fed examiners are only in an "advisory" position for asserting Fed requirements or standards they have no protection under whistleblower statutes, thus the banks exert even more power and influence than one might expect or conclude.
As you said, "Wow".
“The law only protects those who adequately allege that they have suffered retaliation for providing information regarding a possible violation of a ‘law or regulation,’ as distinct from what the law treats as advisory guidance,” the judge wrote. “Plaintiff has not done so here.” (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/04/25/judge-dismisses-examiners-suit-against-new-york-fed/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1)
So, because the Fed examiners are only in an "advisory" position for asserting Fed requirements or standards they have no protection under whistleblower statutes, thus the banks exert even more power and influence than one might expect or conclude.
As you said, "Wow".