Whistleblower On Government Contract Fraud To Receive $19.2 Million

A whistleblower, who claimed in a suit that NetApp, Inc., a data storage company from Sunnyvale, California, lied to the General Services Administration about discounts it extended other customers and failed to extend proper discounts to the GSA, will receive $19.2 million as part of a settlement between the NetApp and government according to a report in the Washington Post, “Company Accused of Contract Fraud To Pay GSA $128 Million.” The suit was filed under the False Claims Act, a federal law that allows persons not affiliated with the government to sue government contractors on behalf of the government. Successful claimants may receive 15 – 25% of the total settlement or recovery. As reported, the total settlement and payment by NetApp back to the government is $128 million. 

Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com

Whistleblower on Government Contracting Fraud To Receive $48.7 Million

A whistleblower, who claimed in a suit that TRW knowingly sold defective electronic parts to the government for use in spy satellites, will receive $48.7 million as part of a settlement between the Northrup Grumman Corporation, which acquired TRW, and the government according to a report in the Los Angeles Times, “Northrup Grumman – TRW Whistleblower Case Settled.” The suit was filed under the False Claims Act, a federal law that allows persons not affiliated with the government to sue government contractors on behalf of the government. Successful claimants may receive 15 – 25% of the total settlement or recovery.

Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com

L-3 Communications Whistleblower To Receive $720,000 Of Share Of Settlement

A whistleblower, an employee, Buster Roderigas, of an L-3 Communications subsidiary, L-3 Vertex Aerospace, will receive $720,00 of the company’s $4 million settlement with the Department of Defense, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports, “Whistle-blower Shares Settlement.”  Roderigas protected the public by blowing the whistle on fraudulent bills the company submitted for helicopter maintenance services on a contract in Iraq.  Roderigas will also receive $318,000 to cover his attorney’s fees in the case.  

 

When an private company employee blows the whistle on fraudulent billing submitted to the federal government and, as a result, the government recovers some of the money, the employee is entitled under the law to a percentage.  The law serves to protect the public by giving employees, who are positioned to blow the whistle, incentive to do so.  It is unlawful for a company to retaliate against an employee who has blown the whistle in this way. 

 

Robert L. Abell

www.RobertAbellLaw.com 

Kentucky Whistleblower Act Protects Employees That Threaten To Report Government Wrongdoing

The Kentucky Whistleblower’s Act protects employees that threaten to report wrongdoing within a government agency, department or cabinet, the Kentucky Supreme Court has ruled in Consolidated Infrastructure Management Authority, Inc. v. Allen, No. 2006-SC-000188-DG (November 26, 2008).  

Thomas Allen was the Safety Director for Consolidated Infrastructure Management Authority, a joint venture of the cities of Russellville and Auburn to administer water and sewer services.  During an inspection of the facilities he noticed numerous safety violations and twice reported them to CIMA’s Board of Directors, stating that if they were not timely remedied he would request a survey from OSHA.  Three months after his second report to the Board, Allen was told that he was being “laid off” due to financial constraints.  He then made his report to OSHA, which performed a survey, found numerous violations and imposed fines.

Allen filed suit and claimed that he was terminated in violation of the Kentucky Whistleblower’s Act. CIMA argued that Allen never made an actual report to OSHA before he was terminated.  The Court rejected that argument, holding that a protected “disclosure not only occurs when a report is actually made, but also when the threat of a report is made.”  

Robert L. Abell

www.RobertAbellLaw.com 

Kentucky Whistleblower’s Act Applies To An Employee’s Internal Report

When an employee becomes aware of actual or possible wrongdoing in their agency or department, their initial and most logical inclination is to report the matter to those persons in the agency or department with power to investigate and remedy the matter.  The Kentucky Supreme Court has ruled in Workforce Dev. Cabinet v. Gaines, No. 2005-SC-000965-DG (November 26, 2008) that such an internal report with the employee’s own agency, department or cabinet is protected by the Kentucky Whistleblower’s Act.

Mary Gaines, an auditor in the Jefferson County office of the Division of Unemployment Insurance within the Workforce Development Cabinet, reported the possible wrongful destruction of confidential documents to a Cabinet lawyer who, in turn, further reported the matter to James Thompson, Commissioner of the Department for Employment Services within the Cabinet.  Two days later, Gaines suffered what she alleged was a wrongful and retaliatory transfer

 

The issue before th Kentucky Supreme Court was whether Gaines’s internal report through the Cabinet channels was a protected report under the Kentucky Whistleblower’s Act.  The Court began its analysis by examining the purpose of the whistleblower’s act:

The Act has a remedial purpose in protecting public employees who disclose wrongdoing.  It serves to discourage wrongdoing in government, and to protect those who made it public.  The purpose of the Whistleblower Act is clear, and it must be liberally construed to serve that purpose.

After considering the persons and entitles specifically listed to whom a protected report may be made, the Court decided whether language protecting a report to “any other appropriate body or authority” could include an employee’s own agency, department or cabinet.  The Court asserted that to conclude otherwise would be “absurd,” since an “internal report is often the most logical first step, and in many cases may be the only step necessary to remedy the situation.”  Therefore, the Court advised and ruled as follows:

We believe that “any other appropriate body or authority” should be read to include any public body or authority with the power to remedy or report the perceived misconduct.  This interpretation serves the goals or liberally construing the Whistleblower Act in favor of its remedial purpose, and of giving words their plain meaning.  Generally, the most obvious public body with the power to remedy perceived misconduct is the employee’s own agency (or the larger department or cabinet).

Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com

Employee Fired For Reporting Co-Employee’s Illegal Acts May Sue

An employee fired for reporting a co-employee’s illegal acts relating to their employment may sue for wrongful termination and retaliatory discharge, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled recently in DeCarlo v. Bonus Stores, Inc. (No. 2007-FC-02287-SCT).

DeCarlo learned that the company CEO was defrauding the company.  He reported this information to the company’s CFO and several members of the company’s board of directors.  He was fired and filed a wrongful termination lawsuit for retaliatory discharge.  The court ruled that his claim presented an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine and that a wrongful termination claim arose from a “discharge in retaliation for reporting a co-employee’s illegal acts that relate to the employer’s business.” 

Robert L. Abell
www.RobertAbellLaw.com