Politics

On September 17, 2015, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision reviving cases that were originally filed in September of 2011 and then a second filed in January 2013 by a former employee of Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NS).  

In the first lawsuit, the whistleblower claimed that NS suspended him due to his race.  After the district court sided in favor of NS, he filed a second lawsuit. This complaint alleged that NS suspended him for reporting rail safety offenses, in violation of the whistleblower protection provision of the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA). The district court again granted summary judgment in favor of NS, asserting that the whistleblower's second lawsuit was barred by the FRSA's “Election of Remedies” provision, which provides that “[a]n employee may not seek protection under both this section and another provision of law for the same allegedly unlawful act of the railroad carrier.” 49 U.S.C. § 20109(f).

In July 2011, NS suspended the whistleblowing employee without pay for six months. Neither party agreed to the factual basis of the suspension. NS claims it suspended the employee because he drank a beer on duty and then operated a company-owned automobile in violation of company policy. The plaintiff, who is African–American, claims the suspension was motivated both by his race and in retaliation for federal rail safety whistleblowing. 

Less than two months after filing his first lawsuit, Lee filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) under the FRSA's whistleblower provision, 49 U.S.C. § 20109. That provision prohibits railroad carriers from, among other things, discriminating against employees who “refuse to violate or assist in the violation of any Federal law, rule, or regulation relating to railroad safety or security.” Id. § 20109(a)(2). According to Lee, federal law required him to identify—or “bad order”—defective rail cars for repair. NS capped the number of cars he could tag with such orders, however, effectively requiring him to violate federal law. When he refused to comply with the caps, Lee alleges that NS suspended him in July 2011.

First, the district court concluded that, to the extent Lee's claims were based on the collective bargaining agreement, they were preempted by the Railway Labor Act (RLA), 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., which requires arbitration of such claims. The court further concluded that NS was not vicariously liable for the individual instances of racial harassment by Lee's co-workers.

Less than a month after the district court granted NS summary judgment in the first lawsuit, Lee filed his FRSA retaliation lawsuit. The allegations in this second lawsuit largely track those in Lee's OSHA complaint. Lee again alleged that he was tasked with tagging defective train cars with “bad orders,” but that NS capped the number of cars he could tag. In doing so, Lee contends NS pressured him to “violate federal rail safety regulations and laws and violate NS's own safety and mechanical department rules.” 

On May 20, 2014, the district court granted summary judgment to NS on Lee's FRSA claims, concluding that Lee's first lawsuit for racial discrimination under Section 1981 constituted an election of remedies under FRSA Section 20109(f) that barred Lee's subsequent FRSA retaliation action. Lee then timely noted this appeal.

A settlement has been reached in a whistleblower class action lawsuit brought against PAE Government Services Inc (PAE) and RM Asia (HK) Limited (RM Asia). They are accused of violating the False Claims Act by taking part in a bid-rigging scheme that resulted in false claims for payment under a U.S. Army contract for services in Afghanistan.

The whislteblower will receive a $261,000 share of the government's recovery.

The whistleblower case, filed in 2011, alleged that former managers of PAE and RM Asia funneled subcontracts paid for by the government to companies owned by the former managers and their relatives by using confidential bid information to ensure that their companies would beat out other, honest competitors.   

In a related criminal investigation, the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Eastern District of Virginia previously obtained guilty pleas from former PAE program manager Keith Johnson; Johnson’s wife, Angela Gregory Johnson; and RM Asia’s former project manager, John Eisner, and deputy project manager, Jerry Kieffer, for their roles in the scheme.

A settlement has been reached in a whistleblower class action lawsuit brought against EMC Corporation who is accused of violating both the False Claims Act and the federal Anti-kickback Act.

The whistleblower reward for this settlement was not disclosed.

The original whistleblower case was filed in September 2004. The United States complaint alleged that, by misrepresenting its commercial pricing practices, EMC fraudulently induced the General Services Administration (GSA) to enter into a contract with prices that were higher than they would have been had the information technology company not made false misrepresentations. Specifically, the United States alleged that the Hopkinton, Mass.-based company represented during contract negotiations that, for each government order under the contract, EMC would conduct a price comparison to ensure that the government received the lowest price provided to any of the company’s commercial customers making a comparable purchase. According to the government’s complaint, EMC knew that it was not capable of conducting such a comparison, and so EMC’s representations during the negotiations – as well as its subsequent representations to GSA that it was conducting the comparisons – were false or fraudulent.

The United States also alleged that EMC engaged in an illegal kickback scheme designed to influence the government to purchase the company’s products. EMC maintained agreements whereby it paid consulting companies fees each time the companies recommended that a government agency purchase an EMC product.

A settlement has been reached in a whistleblower class action lawsuit brought against Sun Microsystems Inc, who merged with Oracle in 2010.  They are accused of submitting false claims and causing others to submit false claims to the General Services Administration (GSA) and other federal agencies.

The whistleblowers' share of the government's recovery has not been disclosed.

Originally filed in September 2004 against Accenture LLP, the United States alleged that Sun knowingly paid kickbacks to systems integrator companies in return for recommendations that federal agencies purchase Sun’s products. Sun executed agreements with consulting companies that provided for the payment of fees each time the companies influenced a government agency to purchase a Sun product. These kickback allegations are part of a larger, ongoing investigation of government technology vendors that has resulted in settlements to date with six other companies.

The settlement also resolves claims under the FCA that Sun’s 1997 and 1999 GSA Schedule contracts were defectively priced because Sun provided incomplete and inaccurate information to GSA contracting officers during contract negotiations, as well as claims that the incomplete and inaccurate information resulted in defective pricing of Sun’s contract with the U.S. Postal Service and GSA Schedule contracts held by two resellers of Sun products. At the time Sun entered into its contracts with GSA to sell information technology products and services to federal agencies, applicable regulations and contract provisions required Sun to fully and accurately disclose to GSA how it conducted business in the commercial marketplace so that GSA could use that information to negotiate a fair price for government customers using the GSA contracts to purchase Sun products and services. The defective pricing information that Sun disclosed to GSA was subsequently relied on by the Postal Service in negotiating a contract with Sun, as well as by GSA in negotiating contracts with two resellers of Sun products.