Virginia Delegate Bill Janis filed House Bill No. 1399 for the General Assembly which would protect state employees who report wrongdoing from retaliation by their supervisors.  The Bill was drafted in response to Ligon v. Goochland in which Judge Timothy Sanner, basing his decision on the principle of sovereign immunity, ruled in favor of the county against a whistleblower who was terminated for reporting misdeeds in county shops.  For more information about The Employment Law Group® and its Whistleblower Law Practice, click here.

On April 13, 2010, the Maryland False Health Claims Act of 2010 (SB 279) was signed into law by Governor O’Malley.  The Act prohibits a person from knowingly presenting or causing to be presented a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval to a State health plan or program and creates a right of action against those who submit a false claim.  The Act also creates robust protections for whistleblowers.  Below is a summary of the Act which is to be codified from section 2-601 to section 2-611 of the Annotated Code of Maryland.

• A person may not knowingly present or cause to be presented a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval.  The concealment or improper reduction of a debt owed to the State (also known as a reverse false claim) is prohibited as well.  Violators are subject to a fine of up to $10,000 and may be liable for up to three times the damages sustained by the State, and in no event, less than the loss suffered by the State.

• An individual may file a civil action on behalf of the State seeking any damages permitted by law as well as costs and attorney’s fees.  An action filed by an individual shall remain under seal for at least 60 days, during which the State shall investigate the claim and may elect to intervene.  If the State declines to intervene, the court must dismiss the case.

• If the State intervenes in a civil action brought by an individual, the State will have the primary responsibility for proceeding with the action and may withdraw from the action at anytime.  If the State withdraws, the court must dismiss the case.

• If the State proceeds with an action and prevails, the person who initiated the action shall be awarded an amount between 15 and 25% of the proceeds of the action.  However, if the court finds that the action is based upon publicly available information, the award is limited to 10% unless the individual is an original source.  Courts do not have jurisdiction to hear claims brought by an individual who is not an original source, though the State may still pursue the action independently. 

• Retaliation against any employee, contractor, or grantee is prohibited.  Protected conduct includes: any lawful act taken in furtherance of the Act; objections to reasonably suspected violations; participation in any action brought under the Act; and any actual or threatened disclosure of information which the whistleblower reasonably believes evidences a violation of the Act.  Prohibited retaliation includes discharging, suspending, demoting, threatening, harassing, discriminating against, or taking any other adverse action relating to the conditions of employment, contract, or agency.  

• Whistleblowers suffering retaliation may file a civil action seeking injunctive relief including reinstatement and up to two times the amount of lost wages, benefits, and other remuneration, including interest.  Whistleblowers may also seek any other relief necessary to make them whole as well and punitive damages. 

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

Monday, the DC Council approved the Whistleblower Protection Amendment Act of 2009, which strengthens the DC Whistleblower Protection Act (DC Code § 1-615.51 et seq.) and The Employees of District Contractors and Instrumentality Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 (DC Code § 2-223.01 et seq.).  The Whistleblower Protection Amendment Act of 2009 eliminates loopholes in the existing DC statutes and provides critical enhancements, including the following:

• 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 December 15, 2009, The Employment Law Group® law firm participated in the launch of Voices for Corporate Responsibility (Voices).  Voices is a project sponsored by Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Mehri & Skalet, PLLC, and The Employment Law Group® law firm.  Its mission is to help and encourage corporate employees to take a stand against corporate wrongdoing and irresponsibility.  The project aims to facilitate participation in legislative and regulatory reform and provide a networking environment for those who have been injured as a result of wrongful conduct. 

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.

On September 26, 2008, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law a new whistleblower protection bill to extend whistleblower protections to city and county employees who report waste, fraud and abuse of government funds.  The new law authorizes cities and counties to create and maintain whistleblower hotlines to receive calls from employees who have information regarding possible violations of state, federal or local statutes, rules or regulations.  The new law also requires city and county auditors and controllers to maintain the confidentiality of a whistleblower’s identity throughout the investigation process.  To read the bill, click here.