The Hidden Loophole of DHS Whistleblowers: Why Program Participants Are Often Left Unprotected

I’ve put my finger on one of the biggest gaps in U.S. and Minnesota whistleblower laws — and it’s a very real and serious problem. Most whistleblower protections at both the state and federal level are written for employees (government staff, contractors, or employees of a private company receiving government funds). The statutes presume that the whistleblower is someone inside the system in an employment capacity. But as I’ve experienced, people receiving services or participating in public programs often have the closest view of fraud and abuse — and yet they’re often not covered by the same protections.

Whistleblowers Usually Mean Employees—But What About Participants?

When we think of whistleblowers, we often picture employees inside organizations exposing wrongdoing. But what happens when the person witnessing fraud is not an employee, but a program participant or recipient of government services? This is the reality I—and many others—face in Minnesota, especially when trying to expose fraud within the Department of Human Services (DHS).

Most whistleblower laws, including those in Minnesota, are designed to protect employees who report illegal or unethical behavior. These laws assume the whistleblower is someone inside the system: a staff member, contractor, or employee. But what about the people actually receiving services—those who interact with the system every day and often see the fraud firsthand?

Why This Matters

If you are a program participant or consumer (someone enrolled in DHS programs, Medicaid, or other services), the protections you can rely on are extremely limited. This leaves many courageous people vulnerable to harassment, retaliation, or being ignored when they speak out. Program participants and service recipients are often the only ones who can truly see and document what’s going on. Without legal protection, the very people who could expose waste, fraud, and abuse are silenced or punished. This gap has been criticized by legal scholars and watchdog groups.

The Glaring Legal Gap

This the real loophole: most whistleblower laws don’t protect program participants or consumers — only employees. But you still have some options under the False Claims Acts (state or federal), civil rights retaliation protections, and through ombudsman/legislative pressure. Here’s what’s going on:

1. Minnesota’s Whistleblower Act (MWA)

The Minnesota Whistleblower Act protects employees who report wrongdoing. Does not explicitly cover participants or recipients of services.

• Protects employees (public or private) who report violations of law, rules, or regulations.

• Does not explicitly cover program participants, consumers, or patients who are not employees or contractors.

• Courts have generally interpreted it narrowly.

2. Minnesota False Claims Act (MFCA)

The Minnesota False Claims Act allows anyone to report fraud against the state (including participants), but this usually involves filing a formal lawsuit (called a “qui tam” action). It offers financial rewards if the case succeeds, but no guaranteed protection from retaliation during the process.

• This is the one statute that can sometimes include non-employees.

• It allows any person (including program participants) to bring a qui tam suit on behalf of the state if they have evidence of fraud against public funds (like Medicaid, DHS, etc.).

• You can potentially receive a share of recovered funds.

• But: it’s a lawsuit, not a protection. It doesn’t automatically stop retaliation or harassment.

3. Federal False Claims Act (FCA)

The Federal False Claims Act, similar to Minnesota’s act but on a federal level. Again, non-employees can file suit, but protections against retaliation for participants are weak.

• Similar to Minnesota’s. Anyone with evidence of fraud against federal funds (Medicaid, Medicare, etc.) can file a qui tam action.

• Again: there’s a reward potential but very limited direct retaliation protections for non-employees.

4. Federal Civil Rights and Retaliation Laws

Civil Rights and Anti-Retaliation Laws are sometimes applicable if retaliation relates to discrimination or violation of civil rights, but they do not cover all whistleblower complaints. And can be useless if those agencies are operating to protect the state of Minnesota by hiding misconduct in the states department of human services.

• If you’re retaliated against for making a complaint tied to civil rights, discrimination, or accessibility (like disability or race), you may have protection under the Civil Rights Act, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), or Section 504.

• These are not “whistleblower” statutes per se, but retaliation for asserting civil rights is illegal.

5. DHS Grievance & Ombudsman Systems

When it comes to DHS Ombudsman and Grievance Systems, while they offer some recourse for program participants, they don’t provide strong legal protections against retaliation or harassment and my experience is that they are not excluded from the core problem; they are the perpetrators and partners of DHS corruption which often racially decides which victims to protect and which to use their resources to further silence.

• Minnesota DHS has an Ombudsman for Managed Care and Human Services who is supposed to protect the rights of program participants.

• They can sometimes intervene if retaliation or intimidation happens.

• But they’re not a full legal shield either.

Real Risks for Those Who Speak Up

In my own experience as a DHS program participant who exposed fraud, I have faced many forms of retaliation that go beyond simple workplace retaliation. These include:

• Being ignored or dismissed by officials.

• Social ostracism from program staff or other participants.

• Obscure or unexplained disruptions to services.

• Intimidation tactics that are often subtle but effective.

Many whistleblowers in my position experience similar harassment, yet without the formal legal protections that employees have, it’s much harder to push back or seek justice.

Why This Matters: Program Participants See What Employees Often Don’t

Participants in DHS programs are often in the unique position of directly witnessing or experiencing fraud and abuse. We see how workers may be cutting corners, misreporting services, or engaging in unethical behavior. Yet because we are not “employees,” our testimonies are often discounted or ignored.

This gap means government fraud can persist longer and more deeply, harming taxpayers and program recipients alike.

What Can You Do If You’re a Program Participant Who Sees Fraud?

1. Document Everything: Keep detailed records of what you observe and any retaliation you experience. Dates, names, emails, and descriptions matter.

2. Know Your Rights: Although limited, some protections exist under False Claims Acts and civil rights laws. Educate yourself about what might apply.

3. Seek Legal Advice: Lawyers experienced in False Claims Act and whistleblower law can help you assess whether your case qualifies for legal action. Contact a Qui Tam / False Claims Lawyer. Minnesota has several firms (like Halunen Law) that handle whistleblower/False Claims Act cases. They can advise whether your evidence fits an FCA case and whether you’re eligible for a reward.

4. Contact the Ombudsman: Minnesota’s DHS Ombudsman can sometimes intervene in cases of retaliation or service disruptions.

5. Reach Out to Legislators: Your state representatives can be powerful allies. They may hold hearings or apply political pressure to fix systemic issues.

6. Consider Public Exposure: Sometimes shining a public light on abuse deters retaliation. Consult a lawyer before going public.

Closing Thoughts: Time for Stronger Protections

Minnesota and many other states must expand whistleblower protections to include program participants and service recipients—not just employees. Those who come forward with evidence of fraud and abuse deserve the same rights and protections, regardless of their employment status. Until that happens, participants like me will continue to face steep obstacles—and risks—just for trying to protect the system that’s supposed to protect us.