Browne was the program coordinator for UDC’s federally funded Career Counseling and Development Center where he worked with UDC’s at-risk students.  He discovered that his supervisors were intentionally misrepresenting the program’s success to secure federal funding.  He took a stand against this fraud and in return he was retaliated against and ultimately fired. 

Regarding the verdict, R. Scott Oswald, Managing Principal with The Employment Law Group® law firm said, “This case is an extraordinary victory for whistleblower protection in the District of Columbia.  I especially wish to acknowledge Mr. Browne who demonstrated tremendous courage and fortitude throughout his tenure at UDC and the course of this litigation.”

For information on The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Whistleblower Practice, click here.

Jason Zuckerman, a principal at The Employment Law Group® law firm declared that, “the AFA was needed to restore fairness and rein in employers’ unequal bargaining power.” According to Mr. Zuckerman, “[t]he current economic downturn was caused by corporate fraud and a legal and regulatory environment in which companies were immune from oversight and accountability.  Restoring access to jury trials is fundamental to achieving corporate accountability.”

For information on The Employment Law Group® Law Firm’s Employment Law Practice, click here.

In addition to increasing the criminal penalties, the bill would lower the mens rea requirement of the existing health care fraud statute (18 U.S.C. 1347).  Under this bill “a person need not have actual knowledge of this section or specific intent to commit a violation of this section.”  The purpose of this amendment is to facilitate claims brought against medical facilities under the False Claims Act.  According to the bill’s sponsors, there have been cases where the government was unable to recoup when a hospital was unaware that claims submitted by doctors were false.  This amendment would empower the government to pursue more claims.  The bill also increases the situations in which the Department of Justice can issue subpoenas.

Perhaps most importantly, the bill provides an additional $20 million to the Attorney General each year from 2011 through 2016.  $10 million is to provide for the offices of the United States attorneys, and $5 million each for the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice and Civil Division of the Department of Justice.  Powerful legislation does little without the man power and resources to enforce it.  For information on The Employment Law Group® law firm’s False Claims Act Practice, click here. 

For information on The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Whistleblower Practice, click here.

This decision is an important victory for public employees.  It shows that it is possible to pierce the veil of immunity surrounding government officials, holding them personally responsible for their violations of individuals’ rights and the law.  Mr. Galli is represented by David Scher, a principal at The Employment Law Group® law firm.  For information on The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Wrongful Discharge Practice, click here. 

Mr. Feldman is represented by The Employment Law Group® law firm.  To learn more about the firm’s Whistleblower Practice, click here. 

Among the speakers at the event were David E. Welch and Jon Oberg.  Dr. Welch is the first whistleblower to win a case before an Administrative Law Judge under the Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower provision.  The Employment Law Group® law firm wrote an amicus curiae brief in support of Dr. Welch. Dr. Oberg is a TELG client currently bringing suit against several student lending companies seeking the return of $1 billion in “special allowances” wrongfully extracted from the United States Department of Education. 

For information on The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Whistleblower Retaliation Practice, click here.

• Clarifying that a whistleblower need not be an original source of a protected disclosure.  The legislative history states: “prospective whistleblowers should not have to guess about whether a supervisor already knows about misconduct in government.”

• Eliminating the “duty speech” loophole, i.e., protected conduct includes blowing the whistle in the course of performing one’s job duties.  Protected acts under the DC WPA include “disclosure[s] made in the ordinary course of an employee’s duties.”

• Clarifying that retaliatory investigations are a form of actionable retaliation.  The DC WPA now defines retaliation to include “conducting or causing to be conducted an investigation of an employee or applicant for employment because of a protected disclosure made by the employee or applicant who is a whistleblower.”  An investigation includes a fitness for duty examination.

• Extending the statute of limitations to 3 years and clarifying that § 12-309 (the pre-suit notice provision) does not apply to DC WPA claims.  Under the revised DC WPA, a “civil action shall be filed within 3 years after a violation occurs or within one year after the employee first becomes aware of the violation, whichever occurs first.” 

• Clarifying that a DC WPA action can be brought against a DC supervisor or official having personal involvement in the prohibited personnel action.  “Any person” who is found to have participated in prohibited retaliation may be “subject to appropriate disciplinary action including dismissal.”

• Providing a financial incentive for whistleblowing.  In particular, a whistleblower may receive an award of up to $50,000 for providing information that enables the District to recover or prevent the loss of more than $100,000 in public funds. 

• Increasing the civil penalty for retaliation from $1,000 to $10,000.

For information on The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Whistleblower Retaliation Practice, click here.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit unequivocally rejected the lower court’s decision, finding that:

• The ARB’s dismissal of a SOX claim due to the complainant’s removal of the case to federal court  does not result in a final decision being issued by the Secretary of Labor;

• Comments from the Secretary of Labor do not inform the literal interpretation of a federal statute, nor do they override congressional intent;

• Congress, in enacting SOX, “expressly provided for de novo non-deferential review in district court;”

• Deferring to an administrative agency, “even if more efficient, is in direct conflict with the unambiguous language of [SOX];”

• “‘Courts do not, of course, have free rein to impose rules of preclusion. . . the question is not whether administrative estoppel is wise but whether it is intended by the legislature.’”

In essence, the Fourth Circuit held that a right to a de novo review means just that.  “The plain language of § 1514(b)(1)(B) unambiguously establishes a Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower complainant’s right to de novo review in federal district court if the DOL has not issued a ‘final decision’ and the statutory 180-day period has expired.”

Mr. David R. Stone is represented by Adam Augustine Carter and R. Scott Oswald, Principals at The Employment Law Group® law firm.  To learn more about the firm’s Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Practice, click here.

In the article, Mr. Carter points out that “‘[o]thers have taken the position that if you go all the way down the line with the DOL. . . it would be absurd to get another trial after that. . . . [t]his decision rejects that.’”  Regarding the impact of the decision, Carter notes that it will “‘make clear that if the DOL is not going to move quickly, then the whistleblowers are free to come right to district court and start afresh.’”

For information on The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Practice, click here.

For information on The Employment Law Group® law firm’s Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Practice, click here.

While employment practitioners speculate that increased OSHA enforcement will have a negative impact on employers, Mr. Zuckerman notes that increased enforcement benefits public interest.  Zuckerman observes that misclassification of employees harms the public interest in that employers fail to pay unemployment taxes and to provide health insurance.  Mr. Zuckerman also notes an important benefit of in enforcing discrimination laws.  “An employer who discriminates against employees on the basis of race or gender loses the competitive advantage of having diverse perspectives in its workforce.” 

Mr. Zuckerman is optimistic that increased resources will allow OSHA to improve upon what in his experience are often “inadequate investigations of whistleblower complaints.”  He hopes “that with more financial recourses, OSHA will comply with the statutory mandate to enforce whistleblower-protection laws.”

For more information on Mr. Zuckerman and The Employment Law Group® law firm, click here.

Mr. Zuckerman discusses loopholes in whisteblower statutes created by past ARB decisions which “ignored the plain meaning of whistleblower protection statutes,” and “[made] it more difficult for whistleblowers to prevail.”  Regarding the new appointees, Mr. Zuckerman noted that “it will be refreshing to have ARB members who are not hostile to whistleblower rights.”

For more information learn more about The Employment Law Group® and its Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Practice, click here.

The district court granted the employer’s motion to dismiss, holding that Sanchez failed to satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) and failed to state a claim of retaliation under 31 U.S.C. § 3720(h).  Sanchez appealed, claiming that she should have been granted leave to amend her complaint.  On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the dismissal of the qui tam action but overturned the dismissal of the retaliation claim, holding that “[b]ecause her retaliation claim did not depend on allegations of fraud, Sanchez’s complaint only needed ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that [she was] entitled to relief’” under Rule 8(a).  

For information about The Employment Law Group® law firm’s False Claims Act and Qui Tam Litigation Practice, click here.