Joseph Greenwald & Laake, PA Blog - Whistleblower (False Claims Act, Qui Tam)

Posted on Thu, 2016-05-26 13:37 by Jay P. Holland in False Claims Act


Jeffrey Mills was the Director of Food and Nutritional Services for the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) from 2010 to 2013.  DCPS used Chartwells, a contractor, to provide its food and food services for students in DCPS.   Mills saw enormous problems with Chartwells, including overbilling and, even worse, providing spoiled food to students.  His complaints to DCPS officials were ignored.  And when DCPS terminated his employment, he alleged that he was terminated in retaliation for blowing the whistle on Chartwells. Mills sued not only for retaliation but also for fraud against the D.C. government, under the qui tam provisions of the District of Columbia False Claims Act.   D.C. Code Ann § 2-381.03. Chartwells settled with Mills for $450,000.00 for his retaliation claim, and settled with D.C. for $19,000,000.00, 30% of which could go to Mills, and the rest to D.C. to compensate it for the overbilling and spoiled food.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/dc-schools-food-vendor-pays-19-million-to-settle-whistleblower-lawsuit/2015/06/05/bae8dd3c-0b96-11e5-9e39-0db921c47b93_story.html.  


Posted on Wed, 2015-07-08 09:00 by Brian J. Markovitz in

Medicare Fraud and False Claims Act meets Snoop Dogg and Angel Heart


Benjamin Franklin once wrote, “[i]n the world nothing can be said to be certain except death and taxes.”  Franklin’s point being that much like Snoop Dogg in the 90’s, before his unnecessary detours under other monikers, the Government gets its money. It’s got its “mind on [its] money and [its] money on [its] mind.” Snoop Doggy Dogg, Gin and Juice (Death Row Records 1993).  So, while you may say “until death do us part” in your wedding vows, not even the Grim Reaper can get you out of paying the Government if you owe it. 


Posted on Tue, 2015-04-14 16:31 by Jay P. Holland in
 
Amendments to False Claims Act expanded remedies for retaliation against contractors and others.

Hillary Clinton came in for criticism when word emerged that she'd bypassed her government email account while running the State Department in favor of her private account. But Corporate America is in no position to criticize, we learn in this special section—mixing of private and company email is rampant, and dangerous. We also investigate the difficulties liberal marijuana laws raise for employers and changes in federal whistleblower-protection laws.

Posted on Tue, 2015-01-13 12:11 by Brian J. Markovitz in False Claims Act

 


To secure to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government. 
Abraham Lincoln, 1847


Government Contractor Wage TheftPresident Lincoln rightly believed that workers should get paid what they earn.  But as many of us know, stealing money from workers on government contracts by underpaying them below the prevailing wage[1] is often the industry standard. 


When unions and their members learn of prevailing wage theft, in response, one of two well-intentioned but futile actions usually are taken.  They start a very public protest campaign – either in the newspapers or by physically protesting at the jobsite/headquarters of the offending company.  Or, they file a complaint with the Department of Labor.  Most times, neither action works.  Trying to shame a shameless employer who didn’t pay people properly in the first place does not work.  And, in this government-shutdown, low-morale, underfunded era, the Department of Labor’s resources are so strapped that it often can’t force the bad actors in to compliance. 



"Death of the fraudster" by Georg Auer Hohensalzburg


Are you a Marylander?


Do you want your hard earned tax money going to companies who are defrauding the Maryland state government?


Posted on Fri, 2013-11-22 19:03 by Jeremy Schneider in Civil Litigation, False Claims Act, Labor Employment


On October 15, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued a False Claims Act ("FCA") judgment allowing the case to continue against Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals ("Bayer"), based on the relator’s allegations that the company fraudulently induced the Department of Defense ("DoD") to enter contracts under which a drug known as Baycol was purchased for the use of armed service men and women.


Posted on Tue, 2013-09-24 17:32 by Jeremy Schneider in Discrimination, False Claims Act, Labor Employment


Kathy:  Jeremy, I know a large part of your practice involves whistleblower law.  Do you have any thoughts or advice to pass along on this topic to our readers?


Posted on Fri, 2013-09-20 19:49 by Jay P. Holland in Discrimination, False Claims Act, Labor Employment

 


whistlehurter


This past term, the Supreme Court in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar held that retaliation claims under Title VII are required to be decided by what is known as the “But For” causation standard.[1]  So, if an employee reports illegal discrimination or harassment based on race, sex, or other Title VII protected conduct and suffers retaliation, the Supreme Court held that the employee must show that “but for” engaging in protected activity (reporting the illegal conduct), the employee would not have suffered the adverse action (such as termination).[2]


Posted on Fri, 2013-09-13 20:08 by Jeremy Schneider in Discrimination, False Claims Act, Labor Employment


Kathy:  Every year brings new legislation that impacts American employers and employees.  Are there any game-changing laws that have been passed or that are on the horizon for 2013?


Posted on Wed, 2013-08-21 16:02 by Brian J. Markovitz in False Claims Act, Labor Employment


The False Claims Act (FCA), originally conceived by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, has been an effective tool for the Government to recover funds fraudulently taken from all types of government programs from national security to Medicare for over a century and a half.  But like all statutes, the FCA has its limitations, including time.  Until recently, it was believed that with little exception fraudulently taken taxpayer funds could be recovered only for a period of six years prior to the filing of a complaint.  31 U.S.C. § 3731(b).


Pages