U.S. Government Files a False Claims Lawsuit Against Sprint

The United States Government enacted the False Claims Act as an incentive to people that had inside information of wrongdoing to provide those details to investigative bodies.  The act has led to legal action being brought against many commercial enterprises, large and small.  One of the most recent cases filed under the False Claims Act involved telecommunications giant Sprint Corp. and involves allegations that Sprint charged the United States government 21 million dollars more than it should have when complying with court-mandated wiretaps and other operations to assist the government in ongoing investigations.  Attorneys for Sprint have stated that the telecommunications company intends to vigorously defend against these charges.

The government frequently will seek the assistance of telecommunication firms when carrying out investigations through the use of phone surveillance.  In order to be able to assist in these requests, telecommunication firms are required to maintain the proper infrastructure.  As part of this readiness,  the firms may seek reimbursement for expenses that are reasonably related to the staff, equipment, and facilities that must be maintained to meet the wiretap and monitoring needs of the requesting government entities.

The current litigation arises out of a case brought by the Justice Department in which it alleges that Sprint inflated its expenses by as much as fifty-eight percent (58%), submitting bills that did not properly enumerate the basis for the reimbursement requests.  These expenses were related to operations by the United States Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Marshals Service, and other agencies from January, 2007 through July, 2010.  The court action alleges that Sprint improperly sought and received funds from the government to pay for upgrades to its facilities and equipment, which are not recoverable expenses, according to news reports.

Through its attorneys and court filings, Sprint maintains that it only sought reimbursement for allowable expenses that it reasonably incurred during the process of assisting government entities with surveillance operations.

The United States government relies on the False Claims Act as the primary mechanism for getting money back that allegedly was paid as the result of a fraud committed by a corporation.  A claim brought under the False Claims Act may include:

  • The improper presentation, with knowledge of the wrongdoing, of a claim for payment to the federal government that is based on fraud;
  • Utilizing a false or fraudulent record to get a claim approved and paid by the government;
  • Engaging in a conspiracy to defraud the government through the submission of and payment on false or fraudulent claims;
  • Submitting to the government a certification about property used by the government when that property may not have been used or the person making the certification does not have actual knowledge that the request for payment is accurate;
  • Purchasing or taking possession of an obligation from the government when the business entity is not legally able to take the respective action; or
  • Acting with knowledge to avoid or conceal an obligation to pay money or otherwise transmit property to the government through the use of false records or statements.

When a whistleblower brings fraud to the attention of the federal government under the provisions of the False Claims Act, he may be entitled to an award of fifteen to thirty percent (15-30%) of the government’s recovery from the wrongdoer.

When a person steps forward to revel wrongdoing in the part of a company, it is imperative for him to be protected.  If you were acting as a whistleblower as part of a protected activity, the company knew that you were acting as a whistleblower, and you suffered harm as the result of retaliatory actions by the company, the knowledgeable and experienced Mississippi Qui Tam/Whistleblower Attorneys at Barrett Law PLLC will fight to get you the justice that you deserve.  Call us at (800) 707-9577 to discuss your legal rights during a free and confidential consultation.  There are no fees until we recover for you.

/by

Edward Snowden Calls for Reform of Whistleblower Laws

Edward Snowden, the now notorious former National Security Agency contractor who exposed classified documents to several media outlets, has recently called for more extensive whistleblower protections to protect concerned contractors and employees.  In a live chat transmitted on FreeSnowden.is, Snowden stated that legal channels for raising concerns were not available to him. Had he revealed the NSA programs he deems unconstitutional but classified to Congress, he states he would have been charged with a felony.  Snowden justified his action of approaching news outlets as the only viable choice under current whistleblower laws.

Snowden went on to explain that while NSA employees have access to whistleblowing channels, contractors, such as himself, do not.  Further, Snowden said the current laws do not provide real protections for anyone.  He said that had there been a real process in place where reports of wrongdoing were reviewed by independent arbiters, he would not have had to make the sacrifices he has to expose the facts he deemed necessary to the American public.

Snowden states that due to gaps in the federal whistleblower laws, he cannot return to the U.S. as he would be unprotected.  Snowden, who fled to Hong Kong and then Russia, acknowledges that returning to the U.S. would be the best resolution for the government, public and himself.  However, because Snowden is among a group of contractors exempt from current whistleblower laws, he feels a return is not possible.  Snowden believes he would not receive a fair trial absent adequate whistleblower protections.

The saga of Edward Snowden has cast new light on federal and state whistleblower laws.  Much of the controversy stems from an important initial question, is Edward Snowden a whistleblower?  Under the Whistleblower Protection Act, any disclosure made by a covered employee who reasonably believes there has been a violation of any rule, regulation, or law, or gross waste of funds, mismanagement, abuse of authority, or a substantial danger to public health and safety, is protected.  Since Snowden’s leak of documents, numerous lawsuits have been filed challenging the legality of the surveillance programs Snowden believed to be unconstitutional.

However, just because the leaked information served the public interest by exposing potential government illegality does not mean Snowden is protected under the law.  Traditionally, the intelligence community has been exempted from the Whistleblower Protection Act.  In 1998, Congress passed the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act.  The Act established a procedure for internal reporting within the agencies and through the Inspector General, but has been widely criticized as being ineffectual.  The Act provided no remedy for reprisals and merely identified the whistleblowers, leaving them vulnerable to retaliation.

Under current whistleblower acts, Snowden would not be considered a whistleblower.   For one, the information he disclosed arguably does not meet the criteria.  The surveillance programs he revealed are presumed to be constitutional, and not illegal, given the assent of Congress and the intelligence community.  However, even presuming what Snowden exposed was illegal, he meets a second problem under the law’s definition.  The Whistleblower Act protects public disclosures only if such disclosure is not prohibited by law.  As the information was classified and its disclosure a felony, Snowden would only have been protected had he brought his concerns to the NSA’s inspector general or to a member of the congressional intelligence committee.  Even further, under the current law, it is not clear that intelligence contractors are even protected.

The case of Edward Snowden will likely continue to have an impact on whistleblower laws and cases for years to come. At Barrett Law PLLC, we view the role of whistleblowers as vital to our community.  In Mississippi, whistleblowers are protected from retaliation when they step forward with important disclosures of law violations and may be entitled to compensation.  If you have potential information concerning a violation in your workplace, call us today at 1 (800) 707-9577 to schedule a free initial consultation.

/by

Mississippi Whistleblower Attorneys Examine The Top 7 Whistleblowers of All Time

Whistleblowers are often figures of much controversy.  Some whistleblowers are viewed as selfless martyrs; individuals who risk their careers and sometimes even lives to expose what they deem are illegalities occurring in an organization.  Others are considered to be traitors or defectors, electing to blow the whistle for personal gain.  Still more question the potential financial motivation of whistleblowers in qui tam cases.  Given the widely varying public attitudes towards whistleblowers, some famous whistleblowers are held in coveted esteem while others have achieved a state of notoriety.

The following is a list of the seven most well-known whistleblowers of all time.  These whistleblowers all share two common traits—they risked their jobs to reveal truths and became famous for it.  Aside from these shared factors, the outcome of their whistleblowing varies widely, with some ending up in prison and exile while others were immortalized by Hollywood.

  1. Daniel Ellsberg – responsible for the leak of The Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg is one of the original large scale whistleblowers.  Ellsberg leaked over 7,000 that documents to the New York Times that demonstrated how three presidential administrations and the military lied about the Vietnam War.  Ellsberg faced a life sentence for violating the Espionage Act, but avoided prison time after the judge declared a mistrial due to the Nixon administration’s actions in bugging his psychiatrist’s office.
  2. Peter Buxton – Buxton was an epidemiologist working for the U.S. Public Health Service.  He uncovered what is now known as the Tuskegee Experiment, wherein the USPHS deliberately withheld treatment to hundreds of African American men infected with syphilis so that they could study its effects.  His vital information led to cessation of the program and payouts of over $10 million to victims’ families.
  3. Jeffrey Wigand – this brave whistleblower worked for tobacco company Brown & Williamson.  With his biochemistry Ph.d. Wigand uncovered the tobacco company’s manipulation of nicotine levels and false information concerning its addictive properties.  Wigand was the subject of the movie “The Insider.”
  4. Bradley Manning—army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning downloaded more than 250,000 classified State Department documents, pictures, and videos, and provided them to whistleblower website WikiLeaks.  The information provided a disturbing look at some military actions.  Manning pled guilty to 10 of 22 counts of violating military orders and will serve many years in prison.
  5. Edward Snowden – currently the most well known whistleblower, Snowden leaks documents that revealed the National Security Agency is collecting phone records for millions of Americans and internet companies offer the NSA access to their servers.  Wanted for numerous felony charges, Snowden fled the country and has currently been granted asylum in Russia.
  6. Mark Whitacre – Whitacre rose to fame when he became involved in a lysine price fixing scheme taking place at Archer Daniel Midland in the 1990s.  Whitacre served as a mole for the FBI, collecting evidence that resulted in the conviction of three ADM executives.  Whitacre was later himself convicted for embezzlement and tax fraud, and served a sentence longer than that of the ADM executives.  His story was the basis for the movie “The Informant,” in which he was played by Matt Damon.
  7. Mark Felt – better known as “Deep Throat,” Felt shared insider information concerning the Watergate scandal with reporters and in turn helped to bring down President Nixon.  Felt was later convicted for his actions as an FBI agent, which he readily admitted to publically.  President Reagan pardoned Felt in 1981.  Felt kept his identity as “Deep Throat” secret for years and continued to deny that he was in fact the informant up until 2005.

At Barrett Law PLLC, we understand the role of a whistleblower is not an easy one.  For decades, we have helped to ensure brave whistleblowers receive the protections to which they are entitled and monetary compensation for their efforts.  For more information on qui tam/whistleblower cases, call us today at 1 (800) 707-9577 to schedule a free initial consultation.

/by

Whistleblowers Speak Out Against Alleged Wrongdoing at Veterans Hospital

Over the past few years, an alarming number of whistleblowers have filed disturbing complaints concerning the G.V. (Sonny) Montgomery Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center, located in Jackson, Mississippi.  The allegations raise serious questions about the hospital’s management practices and ability to care for veterans.  Due to the high number of complaints, their serious nature, and their likelihood of truth, congressional hearings are being held on the matter.

The problems brewing within the VA hospital were first brought to light in 2009 thanks to a whistleblower employee.   The Office of Special Counsel, in a letter sent to the Whitehouse last year, said that the initial 2009 report by a whistleblower alleged that the staff failed to properly sterilize and clean medical equipment that is routinely reused, such as scalpels and bone cutters.  The VA investigated the case and substantiated many of the allegations concerning a lack of adequate cleaning and sanitizing.  It vowed to take steps to correct the problem.

Less than two years later, however, a whistleblower employee named Gloria Kelley, who chose to identify herself, claimed the problems at the VA persisted.  Ms. Kelley worked in the Sterile Processing Department and stated that the incorrect procedures placed both employees and patients at risk.  Though her complaint was referred to the VA for investigation, they did not interview her.  The VA stated that it did not substantiate the allegations, but the Office of Special Counsel felt that the VA’s conclusion was unreasonable.

Since that time, many more whistleblowers, comprised of a diverse group of at least seven former and past employees, have made a variety of allegations concerning patient care. This past November, a congressional hearing was held wherein two whistleblowers described a shocking culture of negligence within the hospital system.

The hearing was held by the House Veterans Affairs’ Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations.  Two whistleblowers provided key testimony: Dr. Phyllis Hollenbeck, M.D., a former physician of family medicine at the facility, and Dr. Charles Sherwood, M.D., the former chief of ophthalmology at the VA hospital.  Both doctors had complained to the Office of Special Counsel concerning misdiagnoses, poor sterilization, understaffing, and other management practices that jeopardized patient safety.

Dr. Hollenbeck said that a high number of unsupervised nurse practitioners outnumbered the doctors by a ratio of three to one.  The lax attitude allowed these nurse practitioners to prescribe narcotics without physician oversight and absent the required Drug Enforcement Administration registration numbers.  This practice was in violation of numerous federal and state laws as well as the VA’s own regulations.  Hollenbeck said that veterans were frequently misdiagnosed due to the shortage of physicians and the frequency with which nurse practitioners did the job, causing them to suffer needlessly and, at times, die.

Dr. Sherwood, who worked at the VA for thirty one years, felt the VA’s performance based model for senior executive services has led to an emphasis on pay and job security, which comes at the expense of the safety of patients.  The performance based model has recently been scrutinized by congress.

Other evidence of a culture of neglect emerged during the hearing.  One poignant story concerned a patient who was also a VA employee.  This patient never saw a physician for over two years, despite repeated requests.  He was seen solely by nurse practitioners.  It took a cancer diagnosis and removal of his entire stomach to finally see a doctor, and then the doctor refused to provide him with leave from work, resulting in his termination from the VA.

The VA hospital has refused to comment on specific cases but has stated that it is reviewing the findings of the Office of Special Counsel and remains dedicated to its mission of providing high quality care to veterans.

Since 1936, Barrett Law PLLC has protected Mississippi’s brave whistleblowers in their quest to stop illegal and unethical behaviors. Under Whistleblower Protection Act, whistleblowers are protected from retaliation and can be rewarded for shedding light on unlawful practices.  To stop workplace injustice, call us today at 1 (800) 707-9577 to schedule a free initial consultation.

/by

Former University of Kansas Lab Director, Professor File Separate Whistleblower Lawsuits

On November 2013, David S. Moore brought a lawsuit against his former employer, University of Kansas, alleging that it had retaliated against him for voicing his complaints about the University’s use of grant funds.  Moore was a laboratory director at the Microscopy and Analytical Imaging Laboratory in Lawrence, Kansas.  He was terminated by the University in October 2013.  Moore’s lawsuit was brought under the Kansas Whistleblower Act.

The Kansas Whistleblower Act bars supervisors and appointing authorities from prohibiting state employees from discussing operations of a state agency or other matters of public concern.  The Kansas Whistleblower Act also bars supervisors and appointing authorities from prohibiting state employees from reporting violations of federal or state law or requiring employees provide notice before making any such report.  The Kansas Whistleblower Act provides for review of a disciplinary actions by the Civil Service Board for employees classified as permanent under the Kansas Civil Service Act, which may subsequently appealed for judicial review.  Employees who are unclassified under the Kansas Civil Service Act have an immediate right to judicial review of disciplinary actions.  The Kansas Whistleblower Act defines disciplinary actions to include termination, demotion, transfer, transfer, reassignment, suspension or reprimand.

Moore’s lawsuit comes just weeks after another, though current, employee of the University filed a similar lawsuit.  Curtis Klaassen filed suit on October 31, 2013, alleging that he was placed on administrative leave from his position at the University for complaining about the misuse of federal grant funds by the University.  The Complaint filed by Klaassen also alleges that the University fired many of his post-graduate research assistants and killed genetically-modified mice that Klaassen used for research.  Klaassen has been at the University since 1968.  He is a professor at the University’s School of Medicine in its Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutics.  The lawsuit names the University of Kansas, the University of Kansas School Medicine, the University’s Board of Regents, and several officials at the University as defendants.  Klaassen’s lawsuit was brought pursuant to a federal civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Section 1983 lawsuits involve deprivation by a state of an individual’s rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the United States Constitution.  Therefore, it is available to state employees.  It is not available to federal employees.  Section 1983 was a post-Civil War piece of legislation that was intended to provide a basis for redress by former slaves against states that refused to relinquish Jim Crow laws.  Use of Section 1983 went relatively inactive for a long period of time.  Its use was revived in the 1970s as a basis for whistleblower complaints.  It is also often frequently used for tort-related lawsuits, including wrongful arrest claims, and prisoner’s rights lawsuits.

University spokesmen denied the allegations contained in both the Moore Complaint and the Klaassen Complaint, claiming that both of the Complaints are baseless.

If you are a federal, state, or private employee and find yourself in a situation in which you have voiced or believe you need to voice complaints about practices by your employer and are facing retaliation or have concerns about potential retaliation, Barrett Law PLLC can help.  Our seasoned attorneys will provide you with legal guidance as to your rights and the protections to which you may be entitled.  We have a long history of protecting the rights of whistleblowers, whether federal, state, or private employees.  Contact us today at (800) 707-9577 to schedule your free and completely confidential initial consultation.

/by

OSHA Orders Reinstatement, Awards Damages to Gaines Motor Lines, Inc., Employees

On November 13, 2013, the United States Department of Labor, Office of Public Affairs issued a press release announcing that one of its enforcement arms, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), awarded damages to four former employees of Gaines Motor Lines, Inc., of just over $1 million.  Gaines Motor Lines, Inc., is a North Carolina-based freight company offering shipping and supply-chain services to a variety of businesses.  The company has terminal locations in North Carolina, South Carolina, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.  Gaines Motor Lines, Inc., serves the Southeast and the Eastern seaboard.  The company has approximately 100 employees and 60 trucks in its fleet.

OSHA ordered Gaines Motor Lines, Inc., and two of its key employees—Tim Gaines and Rick Tompkins–to pay compensation to four former employees whom OSHA determined were terminated in violation of whistleblower protections of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act.  The compensation includes back wages, interest, and a total of $675,000 in punitive damages.  Three of the four former employees (one is deceased) were also awarded reinstatement.  According to OSHA’s Preliminary Order, the four employees who were terminated by Gaines Motor Lines, Inc., were terminated for participating in an inspection of one of the company’s facilities conducted by the United States Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.  The inspection indicated that some drivers of Gaines Motor Lines, Inc., had been falsifying logs and had poor driving records.  Assistant Secretary of Labor, Dr. David Michaels, stressed that employees must feel able to raise safety concerns without fear of retaliation and that undermining employees’ cooperation in inspections was unacceptable.

Gaines Motor Lines, Inc., immediately issued a statement indicating that the company intended on appealing the OSHA order.  The company indicated that the former employees were terminated as part of a larger reduction in force and also suggested that the former employees may have been discharged because of poor performance.  The statement also suggested that one of the four former employees requested to be laid off.  The company further cited its long history in the community and its concern with safety in defense of itself.

OSHA’s award in this case reinforces the scope of remedial and other actions that are afforded to it under whistleblower protection enforcement laws.  OSHA is the primary agency charged with enforcing whistleblower provisions of numerous federal statutes.  Any individual who believes he or she has been retaliated against for any activities protected by whistleblower statutes can report the violation to OSHA.  Depending upon the Act under which the violation occurred, the employee has between thirty and one hundred eighty days to report the retaliation action.   Upon receipt of a complaint, OSHA notifies the employer and will attempt conciliation.  If these efforts are unsuccessful, OSHA will investigate the allegations.  If it determines that there has been a violation, it can order reinstatement, payment of back wages, and reimbursement to the employee for attorneys’ fees.  Information about the various whistleblower provisions that OSHA enforces can be found at http://www.dol.gov/compliance/laws/comp-whistleblower.htm.

If you or a loved one has been retaliated against due to the raising of concerns about practices by your or your loved ones’ employee, Barrett Law PLLC can help you understand the rights and the protections to which you may be entitled.  This is true regardless of whether you are an employee of the federal, state, or local government or a private company.  Our firm has extensive experience representing individuals in all types of whistleblower lawsuits.  Contact us today at (800) 707-9577 to schedule an initial consultation.

/by

Johnson and Johnson Settles Massive Lawsuits with Huge Payouts to Whistleblowers

Johnson & Johnson, one of the nation’s oldest and one of the world’s largest companies, has recently settled a massive series of lawsuits involving allegations that Johnson & Johnson, through two of its subsidiaries, engaged in marketing drugs for unapproved uses and giving kickbacks to physicians and nursing homes.  Johnson & Johnson will pay a total of $2.2 billion in damages and fines and damages in both civil and criminal cases.  Criminal fines amount to $485 million, and $1.72 billion will be allocated to civil settlements with both the federal government and several states.  The global settlement is one of the largest health care fraud settlements in the history of the United States.

Allegations against Janssen Pharmaceuticals, one of Johnson & Johnson’s subsidiaries, regarding Risperdal spanned a course of conduct over the years 1999 through 2005.  Johnson & Johnson, through its subsidiary, promoted the use of Risperal to treat specific individuals and conditions for which the drug had not been FDA-approved.  During the time period, Risperdal was approved for use only to treat schizophrenia.  However, Risperdal was improperly promoted for use treating behavioral problems in elderly dementia patients, including anxiety, agitation, and depression.  Its use with this population was promoted, despite Johnson & Johnson’s awareness that Risperdal posed increased health risks to elderly patients, including stroke.  It was also improperly promoted for use treating children suffering from conduct disorders, as well as in treating children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.  This, too, was despite Johnson & Johnson’s awareness that Risperdal posed an increased health risk to children, including risk of increased hormone levels.  Finally, Risperdal was improperly promoted for use in treating conduct disorders in individuals with development disabilities.  Allegations involving Risperdal also included that Johnson & Johnson, through Janssen, violated the federal Anti-Kickback statutes by making illegal payments to health care providers and long-term care pharmacy providers for promoting the aforesaid uses of Risperdal.

With regard to Invega, a drug approved only for treatment of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder, allegations included that Johnson & Johnson, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, marketed it for off-label uses from 2006 through 2009.

The allegations also include that the company paid kickbacks to Omnicare, Inc., the largest pharmacy in the United States.  It specializes in dispensing drugs to nursing home patients.  The kickbacks were designed to induce Omnicare and its consultants to encourage the use of Risperdal by nursing home patients.

Other allegations include that Johnson & Johnson, through another of its subsidiaries—Scios, Inc.—cause false and fraudulent submission of claims to federal health care programs related to the drug Natrecor.  Natrecor is used to treat severe heart failure.  Johnson & Johnson, through Scios, Inc., marketed the drug for use with patients with less than severe heart failure, which use was not scientifically supported.

The civil settlement includes damages for violations of the federal False Claims Act related to Risperdal, Invega, and Natrecor.  Johnson & Johnson, through Janssen Pharmaceuticals, will pay $1.391 billion to resolve the False Claims Act allegations related to Risperdal and Invega and $184 million to resolve the False Claim Act allegations related to Natrecor.  The company will also pay $149 million to resolve the kickback allegations related to Omnicare, Inc.

The massive settlement includes damages for whistleblower in three states.  Whistleblowers in Pennsylvania will receive $112 million.  Whistleblowers in California will receive $28 million. And, whistleblowers in Massachusetts will receive nearly $28 million.

As part of the settlement, Johnson & Johnson’s subsidiary, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, has also agreed to plead guilty to two counts of introducing a misbranded drug, Risperdal, into commerce, which is a violation of the Food and Drug Act.

Barrett Law PLLC has a long history of representing individuals in whistleblower cases.  We have been advising clients as to their rights and helping them through all variety of whistleblowing matters for 75 years.  Barrett Law PLLC will be there to help you, too. Contact us today at (800) 707-9577 to schedule an initial consultation.

/by

United States Department of Labor Files Whistleblower Lawsuit Against Clearwater Paper Corporation

On October 23, 2013, the United States Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, through Secretary of Labor Thomas E. Perez, filed a lawsuit against Clearwater Paper Corporation on behalf of a former employee of the company in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho.

According to the Complaint, Clearwater Paper Corporation operates a wood mill in Lewiston, Idaho, at which the former employee worked.  The former employee, Anthony Tenny, began working for Clearwater Paper Corporation in in 2004.  He was discharged on June 25, 2010.  During his employment with Clearwater Paper Corporation, Mr. Tenny repeatedly expressed concern to the company that its employees were being exposed to excessive amounts of red cedar dust.  Mr. Tenny also expressed concern to Clearwater Paper Corporation about the health affects of this exposure on the company’s employees.

Mr. Tenny’s concerns went unheeded, and in May 2010, he contacted the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) about his concerns.  As a result of Mr. Tenny’s complaint to OSHA, it inspected the Clearwater Paper Corporation’s facilities in Lewiston.  Approximately one month later, Mr. Tenny was reprimanded and then terminated four days later.

One June 29, 2010, four days after his termination, Mr. Tenny filed a whistleblower complaint with OSHA.  OSHA investigated the complaint and determined that Clearwater Paper Corporation had violated the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.  It determined that Clearwater Paper Corporation retaliated against Mr. Tenny for reporting his safety and health concerns to OSHA.

The Complaint seeks in injunction against Clearwater Paper Corporation from engaging in further violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970; damages to Mr. Tenny for lost wages and compensatory and exemplary damages; reinstatement of Mr. Tenny; and the posting of appropriate notices informing its employees of their rights under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.  The total damages sought are in excess of $300,000.00.

OSHA is responsible for administering twenty-one federal whistleblower protection laws.  These include:  the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act; the Clean Air Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act; the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010; the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act; the Energy Reorganization Act; the Federal Railroad Safety Act; the Federal Water Pollution Control Act; the International Safe Container Act; the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act; the National Transit Systems Security Act; the Occupational Safety and Health Act; the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act; the Safe Drinking Water Act; the Sarbanes-Oxley Act; the Seaman’s Protection Act; portions of the Food Safety Modernization Act; portions of the Affordable Care Act; the Solid Waste Disposal Act; the Surface Transportation Assistance Act; the Toxic Substances Control Act; and the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century

If you are a federal employee and have been terminated or otherwise suffered adverse action because you raised concerns about the illegality or impropriety of your employer’s actions, Barrett Law, PLLC can help.  Please be aware that there are relatively short and absolute deadlines for filing complaints with OSHA regarding whistleblowing allegations.  As such, if you have suffered such an action, please contact us immediately to set up a consultation.  We have a history of helping to protect the rights of whistleblowers, and stand ready to help you.  To find out more about your legal rights, contact us today at (800) 707-9577.

/by

CA Technologies Agrees to Settle Whistleblower Lawsuit

On November 12, 2013, the United States Department of Justice, as well as several state Attorneys General offices, announced that they would be settling a whistleblower lawsuit against CA Technologies, Inc., brought against the latter by one of its former employees, Ann Marie Shaw.  The settlement involves the United States, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York (City of and State of), Nevada, Virginia, and the District of Columbia.  The settlement totals $11 million.  The United States Department of Justice will receive $8 million, and the remaining $3 million settlement amount will be divided amongst the aforementioned states and the District of Columbia.  California will receive the sum of $983,807.00; New York will receive the sum of $708,795.00; Illinois will receive the sum of $426,641.00; Florida will receive the sum of $327,416.00; Virginia will receive the sum of $227,583.00; Massachusetts will receive the sum of $204,639.00; Nevada will receive the sum of $73,794.00; the District of Columbia will receive the sum of $35,346.00; and Hawaii will receive the sum of $25,734.00.

CA Technologies, Inc., is a Fortune 500 company located in Islandia, New York.  CA Technologies is an independent software company that has a significant global presence, with offices all around the world.  It produces primarily products related to business-to-business mainframe computing and distributed infrastructure applications.

Ms. Shaw filed what is known as a qui tam lawsuit against CA Technologies in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in 2006.   Ms. Shaw worked for the company for several years—from 2003 through 2006.  She was a Technical Sales Specialist and specialized in software product license sales to the United States.  The Complaint alleged that CA Technologies was liable under the federal False Claims Act, as well as various state false claims acts, to the United States, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Nevada, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, for fraudulent billing practices.  According to the Complaint, beginning no later than July 2003, CA Technologies defrauded its government customers by processing renewals of software maintenance servicing plans improperly.  CA Technologies renewed the plans as of the date of the renewal order rather than as of the date of the expiration of the current software maintenance plan.  This billing practice created millions of dollars of overbilling, charged the Complaint.  The Complaint details numerous specific examples regarding this improper renewal process, with government clients ranging from the United States Department of Defense to the City of Santa Monica to the Hawaii Department of Public Safety.

The Complaint also alleged that CA Technologies defrauded the United States Department of Defense by encouraging it to purchase software it had already paid for from third-party vendors.  Beginning in 1998, the United States purchased large blocks of software licenses from software manufacturers, including CA Technologies resulting in a substantial inventory of pre-paid software licenses.  When Department of Defense employees inquired to CA Technologies about software needs, rather than informing the Department of Defense employees that the software they were seeking was already purchased as part of the pre-paid inventory, CA Technologies employees directed the Department of Defense to third-party vendors to purchase the identical CA Technologies software.

If you are an employee and find yourself in a situation in which you have raised complaints about practices by your employer and are facing retaliation as a result of the same, Barrett Law, PLLC can help you understand your rights and the protections to which you may be entitled.  We have a long history of protecting the rights of whistleblowers.  Contact us today at (800) 707-9577 to schedule an initial consultation.

/by

United States Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments on Breadth of Whistleblower Protections of Sarbanes-Oxley Act

On November 12, 2013, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the breadth of whistleblower protections under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.  The arguments came in the matter of Lawson v. FMR, LLC.  The United States Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling next spring.  The case arose out of two separate lawsuits filed against FMR and several related companies (the “FMR defendants”) by two of their former employees.  The employer-companies were private companies, but contracted and subcontracted work with publicly-traded companies.

The first case involved Jonathan Zang, who filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) in 2005.  It alleged that Mr. Zang had been terminated in response to concerns he voiced about registration statements for certain funds of Fidelity Management & Research Co.  Specifically, Mr. Zang indicated he believed that the registration statements in question violated various securities laws.  OSHA dismissed the complaint, finding that he had not engaged in protected activities. Mr. Zang requested review of the decision in front of an Administrative Law Judge (the “ALJ”).  The ALJ found that Mr. Zang was not covered under the whistleblower protections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, as he was an employee of a private, not public, company.  Mr. Zang then filed a lawsuit in the District Court for the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The other lawsuit was brought by Jackie Hosang Lawson against the FMR defendants, alleging that she had been forced to resign in 2007 for raising concern about the company’s cost accounting practices.  Ms. Lawson filed a complaint with OSHA alleging violations of the whistleblower protection provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.  Approximately a year later, Ms. Lawson notified OSHA that she intended to file a lawsuit in the District Court for the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which she did.

The FMR defendants sought dismissal of both lawsuits, arguing that the whistleblower protections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act did not extend to either Mr. Zang or Ms. Lawson.  The FMR defendants argued that the protections did not extend to employees of private companies, even if those private companies are contractors or subcontractors to public companies.  The United States District Court for the District Court of Massachusetts, Honorable Douglas P. Woodlock, addressed the arguments in a combined opinion.  He found that the whistleblower provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act did, in fact, extend to Mr. Zang and Ms. Lawson.  Judge Woodlock limited the extension of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in such circumstances to reporting violations related to fraud against shareholders.

The FMR defendants appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.  On February 3, 2012, the First Circuit reversed the decision of Judge Woodlock.  It found that under the circumstances in the cases at hand, the whistleblower protections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act did not extend to Mr. Zang or Ms. Lawson.  The First Circuit was careful to note that the cases at hand involved public companies affiliated with the private companies wherein those public companies were not involved in directing the retaliatory actions against the private company employees.

On July 30, 2012, Mr. Zang and Ms. Lawson filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, requesting that it review the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.  On May 20, 2013, the United States Supreme Court granted the Petition for Writ of Certiorari, indicated that it would hear and rule upon the request for review of the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

If you are in a retaliatory situation due to having raised concerns about practices by your employer, and you live in Mississippi, Barrett Law, PLLC can help you understand your rights and the protections to which you may be entitled.  Our firm has extensive helping individuals obtain the protections to which they are entitled.  Contact us today at (800) 707-9577 to schedule an initial consultation.

/by