In a recent case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the court denied Grand Trunk Railroad’s Motion to Dismiss, holding that a plaintiff may pursue a Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) whistleblower retaliation claim in federal court, even after he has pursued the same claim administratively with the Department of Labor. The court held that pursuing remedies in both venues did not constitute bad faith on the part of the complainant, did not present a res judicata (claim preclusion) issue, and did not violate the due process rights of the defendant railroad. This case is important because it affirms the options available to a whistleblower to fully adjudicate claims of unlawful retaliation.
The Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board affirmed an Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision that found the following: Timothy Dietz reported violations of the federal mail and wire fraud statutes to his former employer Cypress Semiconductor Corporation and, in retaliation, Cypress placed an undeserved disciplinary memo in his personnel file, and then constructively discharged him, thereby violating the whistleblower provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). The ARB’s decision was issued in Dietz v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., ARB Case No. 15-017, ALJ Case No. 2014-SOX-002
In April 2016, the Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board (ARB) settled a twenty-year dispute in Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, United States Department of Labor v. Bank of America. Judge Luis A. Corchado authored the ARB opinion affirming an Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) August 2004 ruling regarding discriminatory hiring practices allegedly used by Bank of America (BOA) to exclude African American applicants in 1993. But relying on statistical analysis, Judge Corchado reversed the ALJ’s ruling that BOA utilized similar discriminatory hiring practices between 2002 and 2005. Judge Corchado’s opinion defined the contours of legally persuasive statistical analysis.The ARB cited a long-established principle regarding the role of statistical analysis in employment discrimination cases: “[S]tatistical evidence may be used to rule out chance.” Bank of America, ARB No. 13-099, LJ No. 1997-OFC-016 slip op. at 13 (ARB April 21, 2016)(Corchado L.). Courts have consistently considered disparities exceeding two standard deviations to be significant. And the more extreme the statistical disparity, the less additional evidence a Plaintiff need present to prove that racial discrimination caused the variation.
Connecticut District Court Applies Dodd-Frank Retroactively and Sends SOX Whistleblower Case to Trial
In Richard Trusz v. UBS Realty and UBS AG, Case No. 3:09-cv-00268, Richard Trusz, a high-ranking executive for UBS, complained that the company followed improper procedures in its real estate valuation. These problems, Trusz claimed, resulted in valuation errors totaling as much as $27 million.
Trusz reported his concerns about these valuation procedures both internally and externally prior to the termination of his employment in 2008. According to UBS, it eliminated Trusz’s position because the company decided to outsource its valuation review duties. Trusz alleged three types of whistleblower retaliation claims, one a federal claim under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and two state law claims. read more…
On January 12, 2016, a nursing home company and two subsidiaries agreed to pay $125 million to settle a False Claims Act lawsuit alleging that they caused skilled nursing facilities to submit false claims to the government. The relators’ combined share of $24 million represents just over 19 percent of the government’s recovery. The case is United States ex rel. Halpin and Fahey v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:11cv12139-RGS, and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The qui tam action, in which the government intervened, was originally filed by two relators. Janet Haplin is a physical therapist and former rehabilitation manager for Rehab Care; and Shawn Fahey is an occupational therapist who worked for RehabCare.
Kindred Healthcare purchased RehabCare Group, Inc. and RehabCare Group East Inc. in 2011. The government’s complaint alleged that the companies submitted claims to Medicare for “rehabilitation therapy services that were not reasonable, necessary and skilled, or that never occurred,” according to the Department of Justice. read more…
By R. Scott Oswald
Managing Principal, The Employment Law Group, P.C.
If a government supplier quietly ignores vital rules but still bills taxpayers as if it had complied, can it be held liable under the federal False Claims Act — even if it never directly lies about its compliance?
In today’s arguments in Universal Health Services Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, the U.S. Supreme Court heard two diametrically opposed views. There was little doubt about which side the justices preferred; their resulting debate was limited to sorting out the details.
Federal Judge in Tennessee Reiterates “Permissive Threshold” of Contributing Factor Standard in Whistleblower Retaliation Cases
In a recent Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) whistleblower retaliation claim, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee reiterated the “permissive threshold” standard of the “contributing factor” test under the FRSA. This case demonstrates the importance of this standard in allowing whistleblowers to pursue retaliation claims, and ultimately to protect public safety.
Under the FRSA, an employee claiming that his employer has subjected him to unlawful retaliation for whistleblowing must show that: 1) he engaged in protected activity; 2) his employer had knowledge of his protected activity; 3) that he suffered an unfavorable personnel action; and 4) that his protected activity was a contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action. After the employee makes out a prima facie case that his protected activity was a contributing factor, the employer must show that it would have taken the same adverse personnel action absent the employee’s protected activity. read more…
DOL Administrative Review Board Member Calls for ARB to Determine Whether Mandatory Arbitration Agreements Apply to Whistleblower Cases
In a recent case before the Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board, which is the appellate body within the DOL that issues final agency decisions, Judge Luis Corchado, in his concurrence, called for the ARB to decide whether whistleblower laws enforced by the DOL, such as AIR 21 (protecting airline employees) or Sarbanes-Oxley (protecting those who disclose securities violations), can be subjected to mandatory arbitration. A holding that definitively determined that all whistleblower anti-retaliation claims could be subjected to mandatory arbitration would likely have detrimental effects in furthering the purposes of those laws.
Under mandatory arbitration provisions, typically seen in employment agreements or settlement agreements after litigation, parties agree that legal claims that could be pursued in court or administrative bodies must instead be submitted to a private arbitrator. The outcomes of such cases are almost always confidential. Further, in most arbitration, the arbitrator’s decision is final and is immune from appeal to a court absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances. Arbitration often serves to promote judicial economy by reducing litigation costs and lessening judges’ caseloads. But because of its inherently private nature, arbitration can also conceal wrongdoing from public knowledge. read more…
District Court, in Case Against Moody’s, Leaves the Door Open for Claims Against Rating Agencies Under the False Claims Act
In United States ex rel. Kolchinsky v. Moody’s Corporation, Case No. 1:12-cv-01399 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), a former employee of Moody’s credit rating agency alleged that the agency engaged in rampant fraud leading up to the financial crisis. On February 4, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in its opinion on Moody’s motion to dismiss, rejected several theories of liability against Moody’s but left open the possibility of liability under the False Claims Act for Moody’s use of an electronic “Ratings Delivery Service.”
Ilya Eric Kolchinsky was Moody’s Managing Director. His first amended complaint alleges that he repeatedly attempted to raise concerns to his superiors about Moody’s false credit ratings. Moody’s ignored Kolchinsky’s concerns and ultimately terminated him. In 2009 and 2010, Kolchinsky testified at three separate congressional hearings regarding the concerns he raised while at Moody’s. read more…
Two Charleston, South Carolina airport employees were fired for filing a whistleblower-protection lawsuit because their public employer said it was improper for employees to sue the agency while working for it. The Charleston County Aviation Authority fired the two employees one week after they filed a lawsuit alleging that they were wrongfully demoted for raising concerns about spending irregularities and failures of the leaders of the agency to follow purchasing policies.
The complaint was filed on January 25, 2015 under South Carolina law in Karina Labossiere and Darla Seidel v. The Charleston County Airport District, Case No. 2016-CP-10-388, by former accounting assistants, Karina Labossiere and Darla Seidel. Their jobs were reclassified several grades below administrative assistance after the two plaintiffs started complaining about lack of adherence to procurement processes. As part of their job duties, the two plaintiffs were required to maintain accounts payable and receivable files, process payment, reconcile statements, analyze financial information, and ensure the purchase order process is followed. read more…
On October 23, 2015, a federal magistrate judge in California held that individual corporate directors may be found liable under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank).
Plaintiff Sanford Wadler brought a whistleblower action under SOX, Dodd-Frank, and state law, against Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. and the individual members of its Board. Wadler claimed that Bio-Rad wrongfully terminated him in retaliation for disclosures he made to Bio-Rad‘s upper-level management regarding possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in China. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, leading to the October 23, 2015 ruling.
Bio-Rad manufactures and sells products around the world, and is subject to the FCPA. Bio-Rad agreed to pay $55.1 million in fines for possible FCPA violations in Thailand, Vietnam, and Russia. Subsequent to discovering these violations, Bio-Rad hired Steptoe and Johnson LLP to investigate possible bribery by Bio-Rad employees in China. The firm found no evidence of improper payments. read more…
THIS POST CONCERNS A CLIENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP® LAW FIRM. THE RESULTS OF ALL CASES DEPEND ON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE. PAST SUCCESSES DO NOT PREDICT OR GUARANTEE FUTURE RESULTS.
Contact Our Whistleblower Attorneys
The Employment Law Group® law firm represents employees who stand up to wrongdoing in the workplace. If you fear being punished — or even fired — for doing the right thing, our attorneys can provide a thorough evaluation that may help you get the career protection and financial compensation to which you are entitled. Contact our firm.
Our Founding Fathers called whistleblowing “the duty of all persons in the service of the United States,” and Abraham Lincoln signed the False Claims Act to foster the practice. But while federal laws reward people who report fraud against the government, whistleblowing isn’t always easy.
On March 8, 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it would award whistleblower Joseph Ting more than $7 million for his role in a settlement under which 21st Century Oncology, the cancer-care giant, will return $34.7 million to taxpayers to resolve allegations that it overbilled government insurance programs including Medicare.
The outcome was a long-awaited vindication for Dr. Ting, who was represented in the case by The Employment Law Group® law firm. (Read more about our firm’s involvement in the case.) In this candid Q&A, Dr. Ting talks about the experience of being a whistleblower.
Do you remember the moment you decided to take this action against your employer?
I don’t remember an exact time, but it started in March 2014 — shortly after 21st Century took over South Florida Radiation Oncology, the cancer treatment center where I worked. 21st Century was pushing us to implement its so-called Gamma project as fast as possible. This was a huge undertaking and I did not see any medical benefit. 21st Century seemed to be concerned about maximizing its profits, not patient care. I knew I could not be part of that, so I had to do something.
What was the problem with Gamma, exactly?
I am a medical physicist; part of my job deals with calibrating radiation therapy for cancer patients. With Gamma, 21st Century was demanding that an extra measurement be taken for every radiation dose given to every patient — and that each extra measurement be billed to the patient’s insurance. They said it was to confirm proper dosing.
Precision is important, so I did everything I could to understand what Gamma does. But the more I looked into it, the more I had doubts about the whole thing. In my opinion the extra measurement provided no medical value. People were not properly trained to use Gamma, it did not work properly in many cases, and no one looked at the results anyway. Plus it made treatment sessions longer, which is unfair to patients. Later I found out it was being billed improperly, too.
Did you raise these concerns internally?
Yes. I talked to my immediate supervisor. His attitude was that there was nothing he could do about it — it was 21st Century policy. But he shared my concerns with the technology director of 21st Century, and the three of us had a meeting. The technology director said something like, “Oh, we don’t charge for that, it’s just for the patients’ benefit.” But I knew that was not true.
So you decided to file a whistleblower lawsuit on behalf of the taxpayers who were paying for this via Medicare. Did that make your work uncomfortable?
The lawsuit did not impact my work directly because no one knew I had blown the whistle. The process is kept secret from the defendant for a period of time. But I did feel more stressed at work. I avoided doing any Gamma work because I was not comfortable with it, so I felt separate from the rest of the group. I really believed they were doing something wrong, and I felt like I had alienated myself. No one said anything, but that was a significant part of my reason to depart in July 2014. I couldn’t be part of the group anymore. I could not be a silent participant.
Do you have any regrets about blowing the whistle?
No. It was the right thing to do. I suppose that if news had broken before I found a new job, then maybe I would have had trouble finding employment — I don’t know. I could retire if necessary, but I enjoy my work and I’m not willing to retire yet. If I were younger, maybe I would have thought this was more of a risk. But it is important to listen to your conscience.
Tell us a little about your new job.
It’s a relief from the stress I experienced at South Florida Radiation Oncology. Where I work now is a very friendly environment and everybody is part of the culture together. We’re transparent and open and talk about things. I am part of the group again.
» Is your employer abusing Medicare? The Employment Law Group can help you to take action.
A petitioner has filed a Writ of Mandamus directing the Securities and Exchange Commission to issue a determination on an award claim filed under the Dodd-Frank Act. The Writ, filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, is intended to reduce the time period between filing an award claim under the SEC’s Whistleblower Program before receiving a determination from the SEC.
The SEC’s Whistleblower Program, established by Section 922 of the Dodd-Frank Act, requires the SEC to pay a monetary award to whistleblowers who voluntarily provided original information to the SEC that led to the successful enforcement of a covered judicial, administrative, or related action. The Whistleblower Program has proven effective, as it incentivizes whistleblowers to come forward and report illegal activities to the government. Due to the amount of award claims filed, however, the SEC has faced delays in issuing determinations on filed claims.
Although it remains to be seen how the Court will rule on the Writ, the petitioner’s filing illustrates the popularity of the Whistleblower Program, the laudable goals of the Program, and the delays currently affecting the SEC’s administration of the Program.
Last year, we wrote about a report from the U.S. Attorney General that reviewed protections provided to whistleblowers employed by the FBI. At the time, that report recommended, among other fixes, the following: (1) awarding compensatory damages to whistleblowers who suffered retaliation; (2) expanding the list of persons to whom protected disclosures could be made; and (3) equalizing whistleblowers’ access to witnesses within the agency. When the Attorney General released the report, then-Ranking Member of the Senator Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley and Oregon Senator Ron Wyden expressed optimism that the report was a step in the right direction. More recently, Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Patrick Leahy of the Senate Judiciary Committee introduced the Federal Bureau of Investigation Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2015.
Chairman Grassley stated that the new bill, introduced in December 2015, “expands outlets for protected disclosures and improves processes to halt reprisal.” Senator Leahy echoed Grassley’s statements, saying the bill would “help to ensure that FBI employees are able to blow the whistle on waste, fraud, or abuse at the FBI and not face personal repercussions when they do.”
In a report released November 30, 2015, the Government Accountability Office found that the IRS Whistleblower Office had recovered $2 billion in tax revenue that would have been lost without the efforts of whistleblowers. But despite this success, the GAO concluded that the IRS Whistleblower Office is plagued by administrative issues, and recommended that Congress pass new employment protections for tax whistleblowers.
The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 created the Whistleblower Office within the IRS. It manages and tracks claims made under two programs, one for claims of under $2 million (26 U.S.C. 7623(a)) and the other for claims of more than $2 million (26 U.S.C. 7623(b)). The 7623(b) program was also created by the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006.
Tax whistleblowers have helped the IRS collect nearly $2 billion in additional revenue since the first 7623(b) claim was paid in 2011 under the expanded program that awards whistleblowers between 15 percent and 30 percent of collected proceeds. Since that time, the Whistleblower Office has awarded more than $315 million to whistleblowers.
On January 5, 2016, former Viacom Vice President for Financial Planning and Analysis Nataki Williams filed suit under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act against the entertainment company. In her complaint filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York, Williams claims that Viacom fired her in retaliation for questions she raised about a scheme in which Viacom allegedly sought to avoid paying taxes on licensing rights to the “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” (TMNT) franchise.
Viacom acquired the international licensing rights to TMNT in 2009 from The Mirage Group and 4Kids Entertainment. Williams alleges that shortly after Viacom acquired the licensing rights, Viacom concocted a scheme to attribute TMNT’s revenue to the Netherlands to avoid the U.S. tax burden. TMNT is owned by a Netherlands-based entity, but Williams asserts that all of TMNT’s business took place in New York. She further claims that a Netherlands-based employee was tasked with making immaterial changes to draft contracts in order to legitimize business contacts outside of New York. Williams’ superiors were allegedly in on the scheme, joking that they do not “look good in orange.”
Whistleblowers are a legal class of persons who expose what they reasonably believe to be unlawful activity to a person or entity that has the power to correct that wrongdoing. A number of laws at both the federal and state level protect whistleblowers from retaliation. These protections exist because whistleblowers often expose fraud or other unlawful activity that would otherwise remain undisclosed. The Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety & Health Administration, for example, enforces the anti-retaliation provisions of twenty-two different statutes that protect employees in the private sector. The United States Office of Special Counsel enforces the Whistleblower Protection Act, which covers most, but not all, civilian employees of the federal government. In recent years, whistleblower protections have been extended, through the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013, to employees of government contractors who disclose fraud or mismanagement related to a contract with the federal government. And in 2014, the Supreme Court extended the anti-retaliation provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to employees of contractors who provide services to publicly held companies.
But there are limits to the many protections that already exist for whistleblowers. The WPA, for example, specifically excludes members of the Intelligence Community. Members of the Intelligence Community are covered instead under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, which lacks an anti-retaliation provision. Even Presidential Policy Directive 19, which President Obama signed in October 2012 to provide some protection from retaliation to those serving in the Intelligence Community, fails to provide a private right of action to an aggrieved employee. And in recent years, there have been a number of cases involving whistleblower retaliation in the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Fiscal 2015 was arguably the most successful year in the short history of the whistleblower program at the Securities & Exchange Commission: In the 12 months ended September 30, almost 4,000 tips were received from whistleblowers around the world — a record number — and more than $37 million was paid out in rewards.
The whistleblower program was created by the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010: Under the statute, people who report securities violations may be eligible for a reward if the SEC uses their information to recover more than $1 million for taxpayers.
The 2015 tallies are reported in the SEC program’s new annual report. Beyond the monetary rewards being paid to whistleblowers, the report highlights a number of steps taken by the SEC to help insiders who share information about corporate wrongdoing.
Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) asked the Navy for a briefing on the case of an admiral who avoided disciplinary action despite an investigation finding that he retaliated against staff members he erroneously suspected of being whistleblowers.
In an October 26, 2015 letter to Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, McCaskill said she was disturbed to learn that Rear Admiral Brian Losey was not being “held accountable” for retaliatory actions taken against subordinates cited in a Department of Defense Inspector General report. McCaskill’s letter followed an October 21, 2015 Washington Post article that reported the Navy’s decision not to discipline Losey for violating whistleblower protection laws and to promote him. The article did note that the Navy issued Losey a “letter of counseling” asking him to be “thoughtful and careful” when handling such matters in the future, but not finding any wrongdoing on his part.
On Monday morning the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on the rules federal employees must follow when they’re forced out of their jobs by discrimination or retaliation.
The case in question, Green v. Brennan, is about legal deadlines. That sounds technical, but really it boils down to simple justice. If the Court affirms a lower judgment, it will become far too easy to deprive federal workers of their day in court.
Fourth Circuit Holds that Suit Alleging Racial Discrimination Does Not Bar Later Suit for Unlawful FRSA Retaliation
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Lee v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 802 F.3d 626 (4th Cir. 2015), held that a plaintiff who alleged his suspension resulted from racial discrimination was not barred from claiming in another lawsuit that his employer suspended him as retaliation for refusing to ignore safety regulations, in violation of the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA).
In Lee, the defendant, Norfolk Southern Railway, suspended the plaintiff, Charles Lee, for six months in 2011 for allegedly consuming beer on the job. Lee’s duties for Norfolk Southern included inspecting rail cars for possible safety hazards. Lee sued Norfolk Southern under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging that his suspension resulted from racial discrimination. According to Lee, his white supervisor consumed alcohol on the job and did not face adverse consequences. Lee also alleged that his white co-workers received promotions under a collective bargaining agreement while his African-American co-workers did not, and he claimed that he faced harassment because of his race. Lee eventually lost that lawsuit on summary judgment.
Two Office of Special Counsel investigations into whistleblower cases recently resulted in settlements. In October 2015, the OSC reported that the Army settled a claim filed by Teresa Gilbert. The next month, the OSC announced that the Department of Veterans Affairs settled claims brought by David Tharp.
Gilbert worked as a civilian infection control analyst at the Womack Army Medical Center in Fort Bragg, North Carolina. In January 2014, she reported concerns to the Joint Commission about infection control problems at the Medical Center. During the Commission’s investigation, Gilbert’s supervisors prevented her from participating in the investigation. After its investigation, the Commission found that the hospital was not following required protocols. Shortly thereafter, in April 2014, the Army began an internal investigation based on the Commission’s findings. Gilbert provided information to the Army investigators. As a result of both investigations, various senior employees at the hospital were disciplined.
In a memorandum issued on September 15, 2015, Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates declared an end to the U.S. Justice Department’s historical leniency on white-collar crime, repudiating the so-called Holder Doctrine — also known as “Too Big to Jail.”
The Holder Doctrine grew out of a June 1999 memorandum written by Eric H. Holder Jr., who at the time served as Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration. Holder later became U.S. Attorney General under President Obama.
Although Holder never recommended leniency for corporate wrongdoers, he instructed prosecutors to consider the “collateral consequences” that could result from pursuing criminal charges against large corporations — and, by extension, the bigwigs who run them. The instability caused by such prosecutions could end up harming “innocent third parties” such as shareholders and employees, he warned; over time, this fear extended to possible damage to the U.S. economy, especially in the case of financial institutions.
The first known case interpreting the Affordable Care Act’s repayment provision, United States. ex rel. Robert Kane v. Healthfirst, was recently approved for settlement talks after the United Stated District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Healthfirst’s motion to dismiss.
Effective March 23, 2010, the Affordable Care Act requires health care providers to report and return an overpayment to Medicare or Medicaid within sixty days of identification. The ACA also requires health care providers to submit a statement identifying the reasons for overpayment. The ACA authorizes civil monetary penalties of $10,000 per item or claim, as well as treble damages, for a provider who fails to report and return known overpayments.
In 2011, Healthfirst fired Kane four days after he circulated an email with a spreadsheet documenting over 900 improperly billed claims worth more than $1 million in potential overpayments. read more…
Connecticut Supreme Court Grants Constitutional Protection to Whistleblowers in the Public and Private Sectors
In a recent opinion from the Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut, Trusz v. UBS Realty Investors, LLC, __ A.3d __, 319 Conn. 175 (Conn. 2015), the Court held that First Amendment protection “applies to speech in a public workplace under the state constitution and that [the state’s whistleblower protection law] extends the same protection to employee speech in a private workplace for claims involving the state constitution.” This ruling from Connecticut’s highest court comes a little more than a year after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Lane v. Franks, 134 S. Ct. 2369 (2014), which narrowed the strict holding of Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), and allows for First Amendment protection for government employees who testify truthfully under oath about matters related to their employment. This expansion of constitutional protection to public employees by the Connecticut Supreme Court is a hopeful sign for enhancing the protection of whistleblowers nationwide.
In Garcetti v. Ceballos, the U.S. Supreme Court held that First Amendment protection applied to the speech of government employees only when those employees spoke about non-job related duties. But last year, in Lane v. Franks, the Supreme Court opened the door to First Amendment protection for public employees’ speech related to job duties by considering both the employee’s “obligation to the court and society at large [to tell the truth in testimony]” and whether an absence of such protection “would place public employees who witness corruption in an impossible position, torn between the obligation to testify truthfully and the desire to avoid retaliation and keep their jobs.” Ultimately, in Lane, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment affords protection to public employees who testify truthfully about job-related duties.