Eileen Foster Case Summary

4. Former Countrywide employee and whistleblower Eileen Foster legally challenged her termination from Countrywide/Bank of America in 2008 and the Department of Labor ruled in her favor. As a government investigator for this case, offer objective observations to either support or criticize the Department of Labor's decision in this case.
The first impression when reading into the Eileen Foster case was that she was not wrongfully dismissed because it appeared that her actions were slightly overboard for an organization that was already aware of potential issues and who did discontinue operations of numerous locations based on assessments performed by the Fraud Risk division. When companies realize turmoil, it is typical and reasonable for the organization to push back on the
With this information and the fact that no other direct punishment was enforced against Countrywide, it appears that the Department of Labor did indeed make the correct assumption by realizing that organization did appear to terminate Eileen employment due to her attempt to bring the severity of the liar loans throughout the organization to light.
In conclusion, while I agree that it is feasible that Bank of American did legally terminate Eileen based on their claims on management style incongruence, it appears that the Department of Labor made the correct decision in erroring in favor of Eileen. The fact that only twenty-one of 1,500 whistleblowers have gotten a favorable response from the Department of Labor evidences that the department acts diligently in these type of cases and that the decision in the Eileen Foster case was properly decided ("Eileen Foster, Countrywide and the Failure of Corporate Criminal Justice - Corporate Crime Reporter", 2012).