Mississippi Whistleblower Attorneys Report: Supreme Court Sides with Whistleblower in Retaliation Case

The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued an important decision in a case involving whistleblowing and retaliation.  The case is titled Lane v. Franks, and involves a public employee who was fired from his job after testifying about corruption.  The facts of the case are as follows:

            Back in 2006, Edward Lane of Alabama worked as the director of Central Alabama Community College’s Community Intensive Training for Youth (CITY) program.  The program is a statewide one aimed at helping at-risk youth.  While employed in this position, Lane conducted an audit which uncovered that a state representative was on the program’s payroll, despite not conducting any work for the program.  Lane fired the representative, Susan Schmitz.  Shortly afterwards, Schmitz was indicted federally on charges of mail fraud and theft.

Lane testified, under subpoena, in an ensuing FBI case against the state representative. Meanwhile, the at-risk youth program run by Central Alabama Community College experienced budget shortfalls.  Lane and 29 other employees were fired in a claimed effort to manage financial difficulties.  Days later, however, Central Alabama Community College President Steve Franks rescinded all but two of the 29 terminations—those of Lane and one other employee.

The firing led Lane to file a suit against Franks, claiming that Franks violated Lane’s First Amendment protections.  Lane sought reinstatement and damages.  The two lower courts sided with Franks and the college, finding that Lane acted in an official capacity in firing Schmitz, and therefore could not claim the protections of the First Amendment.  Lane continued to fight, taking the matter all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In its ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed with the lower court and sided unanimously with Lane.  It clarified previous rulings in which the court held that public employees have free speech rights when acting as citizens, but not when testifying as to information they learned in their jobs or are required to speak due to their specific duties.  The Supreme Court found that Lane testified as a citizen on a matter of public concern.  Lane’s sworn testimony was cited as a quintessential example of citizen speech as Lane was under an obligation to tell the truth.

The Court’s opinion will add a new layer of complexity as to how whistleblowers are treated in the U.S.  The opinion, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, stresses that citizens do not surrender their First Amendment rights by accepting public employment.  Rather, the rights of public employee’s to free speech must be balanced against the employer’s interests in promoting efficiency of the public services it performs.

The case of Lane v. Franks will have positive ramifications on public employees who act in a whistleblowing capacity for some time to come.  Traditionally, public employees have received the least whistleblower protections.  In recent years, however, the Court has continued to strengthen the free speech and other rights of public employees, who so often provide vital information concerning wrongdoing occurring in public agencies across the nation.

Barrett Law PLLC: Experienced Representation for Mississippi Whistleblowers   

For over 75 years, across three generations, the Mississippi Whistleblower Attorneys at Barrett Law, PLLC have provided skilled, zealous, and intelligent representation for courageous Mississippi whistleblowers.  We believe that whistleblowers serve a vital function in our society, exposing waste of government resources and fraudulent conduct.  As such, we will strive zealously to assist you in exposing such harmful conduct.  Barrett Law, PLLC operates on a contingency fee basis and the first consultation is always free.  The skilled attorneys at Barrett Law, PLLC pride themselves on ensuring each and every client receives superior representation, with passion and zeal.  Call today at 1 (601) 790-1505 to schedule your free consultation.

/by

Mississippi Whistleblower Attorney Explains How Whistleblowers Are Subject To Discrimination

Many whistleblowers face retaliatory actions once their complaint is filed and their identity discovered. With the potential of having a monumental effect on a company, employees generally fall out of favor with their superiors. That often translates into a termination of their employment.  However, a company cannot simply fire an employee for exposing some kind of truth. When there is inadequate reason for dismissal, discrimination becomes a major part of the whistleblower’s case.

Such discrimination is evident when there is an insufficient investigation into charges filed against an employee. A company will often charge an employee with some sort of infraction and then terminate their employment without coming up with adequate proof. The timing of the termination is also very telling. If an employee is discharged shortly after blowing the whistle, there is plenty of evidence to prove that discharge was discriminatory.

Employees are all rated on their performance. Discrimination is easy to pinpoint when ratings suddenly drop. It is uncharacteristic for an otherwise productive employee to suddenly experience a significant dip in performance rating. Nonetheless, companies often attempt to blame dismissals on poor work performance. Instances such as those are also made to serve as an example to other employees.  Specifically, it sends the message that if they attempt to become a whistleblower, they too will lose their job.

Differential treatment often becomes quite apparent after an employee blows the whistle on a company. It is one of the oldest and most blatant forms of discrimination. Suddenly hostile attitudes are directed to the employee, making for a very uncomfortable work environment.

Unfortunately, laws only offer so much protection to whistleblowers. In some cases, there are slim statutes of limitations. Tragically, many companies get away with unfair treatment and whistleblowers are often left without employment.

Many whistleblowers face retaliatory actions once their complaint is filed and their identity is discovered. With the potential of having a monumental effect on a company, employees generally fall out of favor with their superiors. That often translates into a termination of their employment.  However, a company cannot simply fire an employee for exposing some kind of truth. When there is inadequate reason for dismissal, discrimination becomes a major part of the whistleblower’s case.

Such discrimination is evident when there is an insufficient investigation into charges filed against an employee. A company will often charge an employee with some sort of infraction and then terminate their employment without coming up with adequate proof.

The timing of the termination is also very telling. If an employee is discharged shortly after blowing the whistle, there is plenty of evidence to prove that the discharge was discriminatory.

Employees are all rated on their performance. Discrimination is easy to pinpoint when ratings suddenly drop. It is uncharacteristic for an otherwise productive employee to suddenly experience a significant dip in performance rating. Nonetheless, companies often attempt to blame dismissals on poor work performance.

Instances such as those are also made to serve as an example to other employees. It sends the message that if they attempt to become a whistleblower, they too will lose their job.

Differential treatment often becomes quite apparent after an employee blows the whistle on a company. It is one of the oldest and most blatant forms of discrimination. Suddenly hostile attitudes are directed to the employee, making for a very uncomfortable work environment.

Unfortunately, laws only offer so much protection to whistleblowers. Tragically, many companies get away with unfair treatment and whistleblowers are often left without employment.

An important step towards preventing that from happening is to document every single act of discrimination. If there is an act that seems even the least bit discriminatory, write it down and then present it to the Human Resources department. Human Resources is obligated to investigate your complaint. Also be ready for any retaliation that may follow as a result of your complaint. Chances are that will indeed happen.

Discrimination even extends to social media networks like Facebook and Twitter. A company can be penalized for the simple task of slandering an employee on a social media network. Coincidentally, employees are permitted to say whatever they want via social media without repercussions from their employer. The National Labor Relations Board has come out publicly stating that employees have the right to talk about work conditions on social media networks without fear of retaliation from their employer.

It is common knowledge that whistleblowers are generally in for a tough time at work once they blow the whistle. While that remains a reality, it is a gross injustice and also highly illegal. That is why it is important to document every part of the process and file the appropriate complaints when necessary.

If you are involved in a whistleblowing case, contact the seasoned Mississippi Whistleblower Attorney at Barrett Law PLLC. We can help you from beginning to end with a team of attorneys who will fight for every one of your rights. Experienced legal counsel in Mississippi is just a phone call away. Contact us today for a free confidential consultation at (601) 790-1505.

 

/by

Mississippi Qui Tam/Whistleblower Lawyer Discusses How Whistleblower Protection Is Your Right

Blowing the whistle on a company you work for could put you in a delicate situation. You could be the subject of threats, mistreatment and all types of retaliation. There have been extensive measures taken with the purpose of protecting whistleblowers. Simply because you blow the whistle on a company does not leave you at their mercy.

Once you blow the whistle on a company or person for their misconduct, you can usually expect some kind of retaliatory treatment. The following list includes different ways in which whistleblowers have been mistreated:

  • Termination of employment
  • Layoff from their current job
  • Being blacklisted
  • Demotion to a lower level position
  • Victimization by threats and intimidation
  • Loss of benefits
  • Reassignment of current position
  • Denial of overtime hours
  • Reduction in pay or hours

A whistleblower protection program has long since been established by The United States Department of Labor. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration Act of 1970  continues to protect whistleblowers to this very day. Workers are also protected under 21 forms of federal law. More recently, The Whistleblower Act of 1989 was instituted to protect government workers who turn in whistleblowers. Overall, most whistleblowers in the present day find protection under the False Claims Act.

Protection can come on a variety of fronts through many of the laws that have been put in place over the years. However, that doesn’t mean companies will not try to retaliate. Now that you know the possible course of action a company may take against a whistleblower, here are some other important tidbits to know:

  • Get ready for your world to be turned upside down. Blowing the whistle could impact your job, your family and your future. Once you make the decision to blow the whistle, do not delay. In most instances, time is money. Furthermore, you do not want the statute of limitations to run out on your claim. You also do not want someone else to file a complaint before you do.
  • Beware of corporate confidentiality. It sounds like a fancy word, but it is often just a way for corporations to get an upper hand. In that same breath, be on the lookout for other employees looking to silence you with “hush” money. Stay on the right side of the law and make sure not to damage your case with immoral acts of your own.

There are laws in place to protect whistleblowers, but those laws can only do so much. You also have to be able to protect yourself from all the pangs and drama that come with these kinds of cases. Here are some protective hints to remember when blowing the whistle:

  • Communicate carefully – Be wary of making phone calls at your place of business and even on your cell phone. Trust talking to your lawyer face to face or invest in a prepaid calling card. You can never be too careful.
  • Keep it confidential – There is no reason to tell anybody what is going on in your case. Keep that kind of talk relegated to you and your lawyer.  The more you reveal to others, the more it can come back to haunt you.
  • Don’t leave a trail – Use public computers or public fax machines whenever you are sending any kind of information. It is best if there is no tangible trail left in anything you do.

If you are thinking about blowing the whistle, contact the Mississippi Qui Tam/Whistleblower Attorney at Barrett Law PLLC. We can steer you through this intricate process with the guidance of a complete team of qualified attorneys. You will need experienced legal counsel on your side during what can be a very tough time. Call us today for a free confidential consultation at (601) 790-1505.

/by

Mississippi Qui Tam/Whistleblower Attorney Explains Being Paid as a Whistleblower

The term “whistleblower” represents a person who finally brings justice to a situation where injustice has prevailed. Exposing companies for wrongdoings can even make a whistleblower a hero in some situations. However, whistleblowers can usually expect a legal fight as companies are not in the business of admitting guilt.

Rewards come in the form of justice finally being served, but the rewards do not stop there. Rewards can also come in the form of financial compensation. In some cases, whistleblowers have been awarded millions of dollars. That financial figure is usually contingent upon the amount of work carried out by the whistleblower to aid in the recovery of funds. The kind of fraud reported also lends a hand in how much compensation is awarded to the actual whistleblower.

So how does a whistleblower get paid? A gracious percentage of the funds recovered are distributed to the whistleblower. Therein lies is the motive of financial rewards along with a search for justice.

Many whistleblower cases occur in the medical field as health care organizations and pharmaceutical companies are no strangers to cutting corners for profits. A 2012 case in Mississippi involving a medical equipment company led to a $1.8 million payout. That figure was not the actual amount given to the whistleblower, which in this case was Wendy Horne. For her part in the case, Horne’s payout stood between 15 and 25% of the funds recovered by the guilty company.

The 15 to 25% range is typical for a successful whistleblower and that generally comes with government involvement. However, if the government does not get involved, a whistleblower can receive as much as 30% of the settlement amount.

Whistleblowers can remain anonymous if they choose to do so. Whistleblowers often become fearful of repercussions that might come from the accused party, expecially ones with a great deal of power and influence. Anonymity can also be attributed to a simple request for privacy.

Companies continue to retaliate against whistleblowers, a trend that is starting to reach an all-time high. A lack of ethics contributes to this ongoing trend. However, those who are unafraid to take on companies or corporations should refer to a whistleblower’s checklist before they step into such a volatile situation. Before you blow the whistle and take your first step towards a big payday, make sure the following areas are covered:

You Present Ample evidence of Fraud

  • The overbilling for a certain product or service
  • Obtaining of funds through falsification of documents
  • Violation of laws in order to obtain funding
  • Misconduct when it comes to sales, bribery or market manipulation
  • Failing to report an overpayment

You File First

  • If someone else has already filed a claim for the same reasons, you will be unable to do so. Check and make sure no one else has already filed your exact claim.

 You Provide Original Evidence

  • You will have to come up with evidence that has not or could not otherwise be obtained. Evidence gathered from public sources is not deemed original. There needs to be an intimate and inside knowledge or gathering of previously unreported information.

Your Case is Not Barred By the Statute of Limitations

  • Certain claims can only be filed within a certain amount of time of a violation.  Speak with a qualified Mississippi Qui Tam/Whistleblower Attorney to make sure that your claim is still valid before blowing the whistle.

If you have inside information on some kind of company misconduct, contact the seasoned Mississippi Qui Tam/Whistleblower Attorney at Barrett Law PLLC. You will need plenty of legal assistance and advice in going through this process. Our team of qualified lawyers can walk you through every step and make sure all your rights are protected. Call us today for a free confidential consultation at (601) 790-1505.

/by

What Rights Do You Have as a Whistleblower?

When an employee reports a serious problem at his place of employment and his boss responds by terminating the employee, the worker may have a cause of action against his former company.  Depending on the employee’s job, he may be able to get help from OSHA.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) handles investigations into certain retaliatory workplace terminations.  Some of the types of reports that lead to wrongful termination claims investigated and pursued by OSHA include:

  • Safety issues in the workplace;
  • The presence of asbestos in schools;
  • Airline infractions;
  • Wrongful actions taken by commercial motor carriers;
  • Consumer product dangers;
  • Environmental concerns;
  • Financial improprieties;
  • Health insurance violations;
  • Automotive defects;
  • Public transportation concerns;
  • Nuclear plant errors; and
  • Securities law violations.

These are only broad categories and there are many types of reported wrongdoing that may lead to a whistleblower investigation.  A person who believes that his termination was the result of a report that he made should contact OSHA as soon as possible after the termination or demotion in pay or responsibilities.  There are other behaviors that qualify as a violation of an employee’s rights as a whistleblower.  When an employer or former employer attempts to blacklist the employee from other jobs or professional organizations, there may be cause for a case.  Other possible violations include:

  • Being denied a promotion or being passed over for overtime;
  • Having disciplinary reports made in the employee’s record;
  • Not being hired on a permanent basis;
  • Reassignment to position that is less desirable than the previous role;
  • Transfer to another location;
  • A reduction in assigned work hours or the hourly rate of pay;
  • Suspension from employment, with or without pay; or
  • Any other actions that are adverse to the interests of the employee.

            A person may file a complaint in person, over the telephone, or through a written communication.  The date of the communication, regardless of the date on which it is received, serves as the date of the complaint.  Generally, an employee must file the complaint within thirty (30) days of the retaliatory action.  There are no specific forms for filing a complaint.  Public employees are not covered by the Occupational Safety and Health Act, with the exception of post office employees.  OSHA evaluates the merits of a filed complaint and then decides whether there is evidence of retaliation based on the following findings:

  • The employee was participating in a protected activity when he acted as a whistleblower;
  •  The employer learned about the employee’s action or had reason to suspect that the employee had reported a violation;
  • The employer took action that was adverse to the employee’s position or wages; and
  • The employer was motivated, at least in part, by the employee engaging in the protected activity.

If OSHA determines that the employer retaliated against the employee, it may attempt to negotiate a resolution with the employer.  If this fails, OSHA may take action that includes issuing on order addressing the following remedies:

  • Mandating that the employer reinstate the employee;
  • Paying the employee all back wages that were lost as a result of the wrongful termination or demotion;
  • Restoring lost benefits; and
  • All other actions necessary to make the employee whole after the wrongful actions of his employer.

In light of the above, keep in mind that the employer does have the right to contest the order.

It is important to contact an experienced whistleblower protection attorney as soon as you learn about retaliatory actions by an employer.  The Mississippi Qui Tam/Whistleblower Attorneys at Barrett Law PLLC understand how to work with you and the appropriate regulatory agency in order to get justice for the wrong that was done when your employer took action against you for engaging in a protected activity.  To discuss what happened to you in a free and confidential consultation, call us at (601) 790-1505.

/by

University of California Agrees to $10 Million Whistleblower Payment

In order to end litigation surrounding a whistleblower-retaliation case brought against the University of California – Los Angeles’ orthopedic surgery department by its former chairman, the UCLA Regents have agreed to a payment of 10 million dollars to compensate the former chairman for his role in exposing industry payments to UCLA doctors that may have jeopardized patient health.  The case arose out of consulting payments made to doctors at the David Geffen School of Medicine, as well as other financial connections between large medical companies and UCLA.

Dr. Robert Pedowitz asserted in legal filings that he reported conflicts of interest that existed when medical industry representatives made payments to medical professionals that might lead to patient care that was not in the best interest of the patient.  Dr. Pedowitz alleged that UCLA, the Regents of the University of California, and fellow surgeons, as well as senior officials in the university system, failed to take appropriate actions when informed about these problems and subsequently retaliated against Dr. Pedowitz by demoting him, excluding him from certain grant applications, and taking other actions that were adverse to his professional interests.

Although UCLA denies any wrongdoing and asserts that patient care was not compromised and that there were no financial improprieties or retaliation, the Regents agreed to the settlement in order to avoid any further litigation.

The allegations of wrongdoing relate to the influence that a medical device manufacturer might have on a surgeon who had a financial connection to the medical company.  In addition, there was the possibility of compromised research when the doctor conducting the study was receiving money from a medical company that was invested in a particular outcome of the research.  Dr. Pedowitz reported that the university also would benefit financially from certain research results if it led to the commercially successful pharmaceuticals or medical devices.

This whistleblower-retaliation case comes at an important time because the Physician Payments Sunshine Act will go into effect in the fall of 2014.  This component of the new healthcare law requires disclosure of financial connections between doctors and healthcare companies.  For many patients, a doctor who was receiving a quarter million dollars per year in consulting fees from a medical device company who then strongly recommends a treatment based on a product or drug manufactured by that company might not be trusted.  The issue of informed consent is critical for proper patient care and it is difficult to separate large financial incentives with neutral treatment recommendations.

As part of the whistleblower complaint that was initially filed in 2011, Dr. Pedowitz agreed to step down from his position in the orthopedic surgery department, effective immediately.  He had been recruited into the position of chairman in 2009, but was demoted in 2010, after he had raised concerns about the improper financial practices.  One of the protections of bringing a whistleblower complaint is that a complainant’s job is protected.  However, settlements often involve a separation agreement because it is difficult for parties who were involved in contentious and protracted litigation to be able to resume a productive work relationship.  Many whistleblower claims that are resolved prior to this point may result in the complainant resuming his job duties, particularly if the whistleblower case led to widespread changes in policy.

When an employee has done the right thing and reported serious problems only to find himself being retaliated against by his employer, it is important to get the right legal help as soon as possible.  The knowledgeable and hardworking Mississippi Qui Tam/Whistleblower Attorneys at Barrett Law PLLC are committed to getting the best results possible for our clients.  Please call us at (601) 790-1505 to schedule a confidential and free consultation about the wrongdoing that you have experienced.

/by

Supreme Court Debates Issue of Free Speech and Whistleblower Protections

            The United States Supreme Court has heard arguments in an interesting case that involves First Amendment protections for free speech and the interplay with whistleblower protections.  There are a number of gaps in whistleblower protection laws, particularly when the employee works for the state or federal government.  Many of the protections for government employees do not extend to every worker or only address the actions of specific government agencies.  This case, Lane v. Franks, 13-483, is expected to be decided by June 2014.

            This case deals with the issue of what protections exist for employees who testify in court against their employers.  The philosophy behind the various whistleblower protection laws is that an employee should not be punished for doing the right thing and reporting wrongdoing in the workplace.  However, what happens when no specific law applies to a particular employee who is drawn into legal proceedings against his employer and is subpoenaed to testify.  In the case of Edward Lane, who was employed by an Alabama community college program, he was fired.

            Mr. Lane began working as a director of a college youth program in 2006.  Shortly after he began his new position, he learned that state representative Sue Schmitz was on the payroll, but did not regularly appear in her listed capacity.  As a result, Mr. Lane terminated Representative Schmitz, but was warned that the action could lead to the termination of his own job.  Soon thereafter, Mr. Lane was subpoenaed to testify in a legal action against Schmitz.  He was terminated after testifying at the first of two fraud trials.  Both the federal district court and the 11th United States Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Lane, with the district court finding that the First Amendment did not protect Lane testifying as an employee and the 11th Circuit upholding the lower court’s decision.

            The Supreme Court now is considering arguments that the First Amendment offers protections against retaliation for these employees.  In previous cases heard by the Court, the Justices have found that the First Amendment only protects individuals who are speaking out in the capacity of private citizens and not in their roles as employees testifying about their jobs.  Although many of the Justices seemed to believe that protection for employees reporting about government wrongdoing was very important, even if that information was learned while working for the government, the question seemed to be how broad the protection should be.  There are many instances where offering testimony in court is part of the job duties of an employee, for example a criminal investigator who routinely appears in court to present evidence in ongoing cases.  The issue appeared to be whether First Amendment protections should be extended so far that these instances were covered.

            It appeared that some of the Justices were making a distinction that if testifying in court was not part of the job description of the employee, then in the moment when he was testifying as the result of a subpoena, he was acting as a private citizen.  This position was supported by the deputy solicitor general arguing on behalf of the Obama administration, who asserted that the First Amendment protections should be extended to government employees except for those who routinely investigate and testify in court.

            This case is being closely monitored by organizations that work towards whistleblower protections against retaliation.  Whistleblower laws have been evolving over many years.  Depending on the decision of the Supreme Court in this case, there may be more changes to ensure that all employees are encouraged to report instances of misconduct and fraud.

            The Mississippi Qui Tam/Whistleblower Attorneys at Barrett Law PLLC are dedicated to maintaining our skills in these types of cases as the law continues to change.  We work hard to ensure that our clients get the benefits of these protections.  If you have been the victim of retaliatory actions by your employer, call us at (601) 790-1505 to learn how we can help you.

/by

The United States Supreme Court Upholds Whistleblower Protections

In the case that was heard before the U.S. Supreme Court (Lawson v. FMR, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-3),  the arguments made by FMR, LLC, the parent company of Fidelity Investments (Fidelity), that whistleblower protections should not extend to contractors working for the company, were ultimately rejected.  This case affirms the position that under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, whistleblower protection extends beyond direct employees.  In a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that whistleblower protections apply to the subcontractors who do business with the publicly traded companies covered by the terms of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, including law firms, accounting firms, investment advisers, and other companies.

At issue in this case was the whistleblower protection provision in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which was passed in 2002 as a means of reforming financial transactions.  The Act created a set of standards for management and public accounting firms, as well as publically traded company boards.  Attorneys arguing against the broad interpretation of the whistleblower protection provision stated that the ruling would expand the application of the protection from 5,000 companies to more than a million businesses, including small businesses.

This case arose out of the termination of the contract of a senior director of finance and another individual after they reported some improprieties with cost-accounting. Fidelity Investments has mutual funds that are public companies required to file reports with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  However, the management of the funds is carried out through private companies that are under contract.  The whistleblowers in this case, Jackie Lawson and Jonathan Zang, worked for Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC. They brought a whistleblower retaliation case against Fidelity after they were terminated, allegedly as the result of reporting improper company practices.  Due to the fact that Fidelity uses a contractor model to operate its funds, there are no direct employees.  The dissenting judges stated that the decision was too broad, leading to the possibility of lawsuits brought by low-level employees who were terminated for other reasons after viewing a trivial offense.  These federal retaliation claims could be brought against small businesses, leading to many cases that would not have been brought otherwise.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case was based on the fact that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act granted whistleblower protection to “any officer, employee, contractor, subcontractor, or agent.”  The Court ruled that it was not possible for Congress to have passed an act that did not offer protection to someone like Jackie Hosang Lawson and Jonathan Zang, the Fidelity contractor employees who brought the retaliation claim.  In writing the opinion for the Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg addressed the arguments that there would be a lot more retaliation claims by stating that there was little evidence that the floodgates would open.

When a person brings a retaliation claim against a former employer stating that the employment was terminated or the employee was demoted based, at least in part, on retaliation for reporting a financial impropriety.  The employee only needs to satisfy the “preponderance of the evidence” standard while the employer must show that the employee was terminated or demoted for legitimate reasons by clear and convincing evidence.  Under the interpretation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the financial impropriety might be based on mail fraud or wire fraud.  Critics of the ruling claim that this imbalance will lead to inequity.

Whistleblower protections are necessary to provide a means of redress for employees who were terminated after reporting a problem within the business.  Although it is never easy to go through a lawsuit, the skilled and compassionate whistleblower and qui tam attorneys at Barrett Law PLLC will work with you to enforce your rights and hold the company accountable for your wrongful termination.  To discuss what happened to you, call us at (601) 790-1505.  Our attorneys only get paid if we succeed on your claim.

/by

Securities Exchange Commission Enters into Whistleblower Case against Siemens

There was a whistleblower retaliatory termination action filed against Siemens A.G.by Meng-Lin Liu, who was a Division Compliance Officer for Siemens China, which is a subsidiary of Siemens A.G.  Liu alleged that Siemens China was engaged in a kickback scheme to sell medical imaging equipment to public hospitals in China and North Korea through intermediaries who would send a portion of the proceeds to the officials who granted the contracts to Siemens China.  Liu made a number of attempts to change the company policies and reported the possibility of corruption to a number of different people within the company.  Over a period of time, Siemens China stripped responsibilities from Liu and eventually informed him that he should not report to work for the remainder of his employment contract and that the contract would not be renewed.

Liu brought a whistleblower retaliation action against Siemens A.G. under the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and its anti-retaliation provisions as related to reports of wrongdoing pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and other regulations under the umbrella of the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC).  Siemens argued that the whistleblower protections did not apply because Liu only reported the problems internally while an employee of Siemens China.  Liu only went to the SEC after he was terminated.  For a variety of reasons, including the fact that the whistleblower protections at issue did not extend to extraterritorial retaliation terminations, the complaint was dismissed with prejudice.  However, the court did not rule on the question of whether the Dodd-Frank protections extended to whistleblowers who reported company improprieties internally, but did not go to the SEC with the reports of wrongdoing.  The case is now back in the courts.

The SEC has been indicating for some time that it was going to begin to take action against companies that retaliated against employees who reported improprieties internally, but did not pursue an external report.  In the Siemens case, the SEC filed an amicus brief, known as a “friend of the court” filing, in which the SEC asserted that its interpretation of the provision in Dodd-Frank that protected against retaliation extended the protection to employees who only followed internal reporting protocols.

Although the SEC has been giving warnings that it intended to wade into this battle for some time, the filing of the amicus brief outlining its position on the application of the Dodd-Frank whistleblower protections to internal whistleblowers.  This position may provide additional security for employees who are considering reporting company wrongdoing.

The outcome of this court case can have serious repercussions on the development of internal policies.  If the court were to decide that Siemens’ assertions are correct, it could signal a new company policy where the company would be motivated to terminate an employee who reported improprieties as quickly as possible before he had a chance to go to the SEC and report the problems.

When an employee discovers that the company for which he works has done something wrong, he has a difficult decision to make.  If he reports the problem, he incurs the risk of losing his job.  Whistleblower protections are intended to ensure that an employee can do the right thing while being assured that he will not lose his livelihood.  If you are facing a retaliation termination, the knowledgeable and committed whistleblower and qui tam attorneys at Barrett Law PLLC will work with you to develop an effective legal strategy.  We will sit down with you during a free initial evaluation.  To schedule an appointment, please call us at (601) 790-1505.  We only receive a fee if we succeed in getting you a payment on your claim.

/by

New York Federal Court Judge Revives Hawker Beechcraft Corp. Whistleblower Case

A whistleblower case that was precluded by the ruling of a bankruptcy court judge has been given new life by a New York federal court judge.  In March 2012, Hawker Beechcraft filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.  When Hawker Beechcraft Corp. went through the bankruptcy process, it had a 2.3 billion dollar False Claims Act case pending against it.  The action was based upon allegations that the company had used defective parts in manufacturing planes that were subsequently sold to the U.S. government.

The bankruptcy judge ruled that the claims did not satisfy the stringent requirements for exemptions of some types of debts that prevented them from being written off in the reorganization plan.  However, the recent federal court ruling now gives the whistleblowers the chance to argue their case in bankruptcy court, even though a bankruptcy exit plan is in place, the company emerged from bankruptcy in 2013, and Hawker Beechcraft now has been sold to Textron Inc.

Two former employees of a subcontractor to Hawker Beechcraft, TECT Aerospace Inc., are going to be able to argue that they are entitled to recover on behalf of the government for defective plane parts in planes that were purchased by the U.S. government.  The False Claims Act provides private citizens with the right to bring actions based on wrongdoing done to the U.S. government.  In the matter of Hawker Beechcraft, the planes with defective parts were purchased by the U.S. Navy and Air Force, thereby involving fraudulent actions impacting government entities.  This case involves possible penalties up to 2.3 billion dollars.  When an action like this is brought, the private citizen who initiated the case gets a portion of the damages that ultimately are awarded.  This action proved to be very complicated because of the bankruptcy of Hawker Beechcraft.

After the Hawker Beechcraft bankruptcy was filed, the bankruptcy judge ruled that there was nothing about the False Claims Act action and the potential monetary award that justified it being exempt from the write off of debts in bankruptcy.  There are very few exceptions to this rule, which include student loans, child-support payments, and damages awards arising out of drunk driving injuries.  The bankruptcy judge determined that the claims did not fit within the narrow loophole.  The two claimants asserted that the dismissal of their whistleblower lawsuit was improper based on the fact that it was grounded in allegations of government contracting fraud.  A New York judge now has agreed with them and they will get a second chance at recovering for the fraudulent actions of Hawker Beechcraft.

The recent decision by Judge P. Kevin Castel grants whistleblowers the right to argue their claims in bankruptcy court.  However, it by no means guarantees them a recovery, merely gets them in the door.

Whistleblower laws are intended to encourage private citizens to hold companies accountable for wrongdoing while offering protection from retaliation.  However, there are times when the companies do retaliate against the employees for stepping up and doing the right thing.  If you have been terminated or demoted because you reported a problem, the experienced and hardworking attorneys at Barrett Law PLLC will develop a legal strategy based on the unique needs of your case.  To schedule a free initial consultation, call us at (601) 790-1505.  Our commitment to our clients means that we only get paid if we recover the compensation that you deserve.

/by