Sunday Read: Sarah Carver + Jennifer Griffith
As part of our Women’s History Month celebrations, National Whistleblower Center (NWC) highlights women whose bravery impacted the legal landscape, kept consumers safe and protected taxpayers.
In this Sunday Read, we speak exclusively with Jennifer Griffith and Sarah Carver, the whistleblowers who uncovered a $550 million defrauding of the Social Security system. This revelation exposed corrupt judges, doctors, and at the center of it all, Kentucky attorney Eric Conn’s fraudulent scheme.
Their plight was detailed in part during the four-part AppleTV+ docuseries, The Big Conn, and around the time of its release in March 2023, Carver and Griffith appeared on the Whistleblower Network News podcast, Whistleblower of the Week; listen to part 1 and part 2 for even more insight. NWC was thrilled to catch up with the duo, who offered their perspective on the present and future of women in whistleblowing law.
An Interview with Sarah Carver and Jennifer Griffith
NWC: How did your backgrounds as paralegals shape your ethical perspective?
Jennifer Griffith: I think our backgrounds just enhanced an already present sense of what is fundamentally right or wrong. Our education and background helped to break down the situation we were in and give us confirmation that we weren’t wrong and what we were experiencing really was wrong, and that our obligation as federal employees was to report what we saw because it was morally and ethically wrong.
Sarah Carver: When you are in a profession where personal accountability is a key principle, ethical behavior is vital. As paralegals, our training, education, past and current, emphasized ethics. It was taught in our college courses, continuing legal education, and onboarding we received as government employees. Being in the legal profession, and as government employees, you are faced with ethical questions on an almost-daily basis and are held to a higher standard of accountability.
In many situations, women still face inequities on both sides side of the law. Let’s start when they are the alleged wrongdoers. When women take part in or are complicit to illegal activity and fraud, how might it sting differently, if at all?
JG: I don’t necessarily think of it any differently. There may be a tendency to think women might not participate in illegal activity as frequently as men. I think it goes along with the misconception that women are not smart enough to engage in complex crimes. In our case, our supervisors, office director, and several of the judges did not think we were smart enough to understand and break down this crime. Even Eric Conn has said he didn’t give us enough credit and he should have.
SC: I do not consider a difference between male and female when being complicit in a crime. However, it does anger me to see a woman being complicit in a crime in order to advance career goals. There are better ways to succeed. In our situation, specifically, women who were silent regarding the criminal actions were promoted over those who spoke out.
JG: When a woman is focused on succeeding or, for us, seeing that the individuals responsible for this crime were punished, we were often called a lot of unflattering names like “witch,” “vindictive,” or even “power hungry.”
SC: Women are sometimes subjected to harsher criticism and scrutiny compared to their male counterparts for similar actions. This disparity in treatment is often attributed to gender stereotypes and biases that exist in society.
Do you feel that society has looked differently upon male and female whistleblowers?
JG: I feel society as a whole looks upon all whistleblowers negatively. We are often called “troublemakers,” “disgruntled employees,” or referred to as a “problem” in any situation where someone is trying to right a wrong or call in to question the ethics or behavior of higher-ranking officials.
SC: Overall, I believe the perception of whistleblowers is not positive. But it should be. It is important to ensure that all whistleblowers, regardless of gender are supported and protected when they come forward to expose misconduct and unethical behavior.
How would you characterize your experiences with your whistleblower attorneys?
JG: Getting someone to listen to your story at all is often the biggest hurdle to clear and it’s no different when you are seeking legal counsel.
Sarah and I sought Benjamin Vernia with Vernia Law from the D.C. area, and he not only listened — he believed us — which was really the first time we had experienced that. We were immensely grateful because we felt somewhat protected at that time.
Since we needed local counsel in West Virginia, Ben reached out to Mark Wohlander who was with Wallingford Law, PSC. Attorneys Nick Wallingford and Brian Ritchie, who were also at Wallingford Law, PSC were on board to help us as well. All these attorneys did what no one else had really done, and that was simply to believe us.
Until that point no one believed that something like this could be happening, or that it was so prolific. Eric Conn was a really well-known attorney in our area and that made finding counsel harder. I think we really benefited from having the perspectives of multiple experienced attorneys on board. This was a long, crazy journey and I’m thankful for all that these wonderful attorneys did for us. I think we were difficult clients to have because we were both experienced paralegals, but looking back all were incredibly patient and helpful.
How have your lives changed since gaining notoriety?
JG: I don’t really think we are that well known. There are still many people even in our own area that do not know who we are or anything about this story. I do find it interesting that we are viewed in a much more positive light now than we were when this whole case initially started.
SC: Initially we had no support. It was just the two of us, which felt like we were taking on the government alone. It was them versus us. The Office of Special Counsel, the Office of the Inspector General, the FBI, and the DOJ initially spent more time trying to find any evidence making us complicit in the crime we had reported. Not one of these agencies tried to work with us. It was totally the opposite. The DOJ referred to the Social Security Administration as “their clients.” We were the ones being investigated and scrutinized, which significantly delayed investigations.
After The Big Conn, we began connecting with other groups and individuals who had similar experiences. We found support in these groups and feel less alienated. It finally feels good to share our experiences with others and hopefully help others who are struggling on the path of being a whistleblower.
JG: We’ve recently become involved with the Association of Accredited Fraud Examiners (ACFE) and became Certified Fraud Examiners. ACFE President John Gill reached out to us after watching The Big Conn and was shocked by our story. The ACFE has opened new doors for us to continue telling our story to a wider audience.
What tips do you have for anyone considering sounding the alarm? What should they do or avoid, and what should they expect?
JG: I think it is probably a different experience for government whistleblowers than corporate whistleblowers and I don’t know how similar those situations would be, but I think the most important information I can share from our experience is to document everything.
Create a timeline of events or keep a journal because dates and times will eventually be critical. No detail is too small or too insignificant. In our case, so much data was destroyed by the government between 2005 when it started and 2011 when the Wall Street Journal ran our story; had we not been so vigilant with preserving the emails and other documentation that we would not have prevailed in our qui tam suit. In fact, it’s entirely possible they would have blamed us for the fraud, as they repeatedly said they would do if caught.
Additionally, you have to mentally prepare yourself for a long arduous fight in which your competency, loyalty, morality, and ethics will be called into question. I think most whistleblowers experience some retaliation, but it just varies in severity. I don’t think most people going into this are ever prepared for how bad it can get. I know we weren’t.
What would you like to tell the NWC audience and the public?
JG: I think it’s important to talk to other whistleblowers. Anyone considering coming forward should reach out to organizations supporting whistleblowers like NWC because you need support. Sarah and I had each other’s backs in this battle, and we were isolated, and lost the support of many of our friends. Most of the time it is a single individual whistleblower against an entity that is far more powerful and has vast resources available to them.
SC: Jennifer and I were two small voices in a small town being told, “this is the way things have always been done.” We can now say that no matter how small the voice and how small the town, speaking up can make a difference.
Resources For Whistleblowers
The decision to come forward is not one to be taken lightly, nor should selecting a whistleblower lawyer. NWC provides resources that can connect you with the right legal professional.
You can also learn more about the type of whistleblower lawyer needed for your claim in Rules for Whistleblowers: A Handbook for Doing What’s Right, written by NWC Founder and Chairman of the Board Stephen M. Kohn.
Support NWC
NWC fights to bolster whistleblower programs, inform the public and employees in all sectors about available laws and protections, and help connect whistleblowers with the right legal representation. As a 501(c)(3) non-profit our awareness building work is made possible with the support of our generous donors. Please consider donating $100 today to help us continue to educate the public on how to find help when it is time for them to blow the whistle, and donors who donate over $50 will receive a copy of Rules for Whistleblowers.
This story was written by Justin Smulison, a professional writer, podcaster, and event host based in New York.
