Whether an employer's professed motivating factor in taking adverse action
against a whistleblower employee under the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act should override a whistleblower employee's reasonable
belief that he has been subject to an adverse action because of protected activity. The
lower courts' subordination of the role of the employee's reasonable belief in favor of
an employer's ability to justify an adverse action is especially troubling when the very
purpose of these whistleblower protections is to encourage employees to make
difficult choices by putting their careers on the line for the sake of safety.

Whether an employer's professing motivating factor should override a whistleblower employee's reasonable belief of retaliation