PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Oct 1, 2009
Non-Federal Employee Whistleblower Protection Act of 2009 - Amends the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 to repeal and replace provisions prohibiting reprisals against employees of government contractors for disclosing to a federal official information relating to a substantial violation of law related to a public contract.
Prohibits an employee of any non-federal employer receiving covered funds (i.e., a contract, grant, or other payment any portion of of which is provided by the federal government) from being discriminated against as a reprisal for initiating or participating in any proceeding related to the misuse of federal funds, reasonably opposing the misuse of federal funds, or disclosing to specified federal agencies or officials information that the employee reasonably believes is evidence of: (1) gross mismanagement of an agency contract or grant relating to covered funds; (2) a gross waste of covered funds; (3) a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or an abuse of authority, related to the implementation or use of covered funds; or (4) a violation of a law, rule, or regulation related to an agency contract, subcontract, or grant relating to covered funds.
Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) time limitations for agency inspector general determinations regarding whether to conduct or continue an investigation of a reprisal complaint; (2) the right of a complainant to pursue a civil remedy if an inspector general decides not to conduct or continue an investigation or an agency denies relief or fails to act with specified periods; (3) a complainant's access to the inspector general's investigative file; (4) the standard of proof for a reprisal; (5) agency actions to deny relief or to remedy a reprisal, including by requiring a compliance program to ensure that an employer commits no further retaliation or by requiring the employee to be paid ten times the amount of lost wages and other compensatory damages where the reprisal is found to have been willful, wanton, or malicious; and (6) non-enforceability of certain provisions waiving rights and remedies or requiring arbitration of disputes.
People & committees
Sen. McCaskill, Claire [D-MO] · D–MO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1745 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1745 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1745 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1745 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.