That sounded fine, until he scrutinized the deal. To receive the money from Radian, he had to sign a document stating that he had not filed a complaint against the company with any local, state or federal agencies. Another stipulation: Accepting the severance would bar him from receiving any “monetary damages or any other form of personal relief” in connection with an investigation or proceeding involving the company.

In other words, he could not receive a whistle-blower award.

Because Mr. Lutz and some colleagues had reported their concerns about Radian to the S.E.C., he did not sign the severance agreement. So he accepted the new position the company had offered. He soon found himself essentially reporting to a low-level employee at an outside vendor. When he asked to go back to financial auditing at Radian, a superior told him that he’d never be allowed to conduct those tasks.

He decided to leave Radian. Luckily, he found employment elsewhere in the field.

Still, Mr. Lutz wonders why the S.E.C. has not pursued the whistle-blower complaint he filed against Radian, which outlined its retaliation against him. “A big reason why people don’t report these things is what happened to me in this instance,” Mr. Lutz said. “That’s a big deterrent to people. Every time issues like mine are not enforced, it reinforces the notion that these pieces of legislation are paper tigers and nothing is going to come of it anyway.”

It’s not as if the facts of the retaliation are in doubt. Last fall, the Labor Department sided with Mr. Lutz in an identical matter he had filed against Radian with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. After examining the material produced by Mr. Lutz and Radian, the Labor Department agreed that the company had punished him for speaking up; it required Radian to pay him $20,000 in damages.

Then there is the matter of the restrictive severance agreement Radian offered. Its terms are similar to those that have drawn fire from the S.E.C. at other companies recently.

In January, for example, BlackRock, the huge asset manager, settled with the S.E.C. for offering exit agreements that prevented former employees from reaping the financial benefits of whistle-blowing. Without admitting or denying the findings, BlackRock paid $340,000 to settle the matter.

The agreement Radian offered to Mr. Lutz was equally problematic, said Stuart Meissner, a lawyer in New York City who represents him. “He didn’t get severance solely because he participated in the S.E.C.’s whistle-blower program,” Mr. Meissner said. “This needs to be addressed.”