The story has since been featured in other Gannet Government Media publications including the Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Corps Times, and Military Times.  In addition, the article was mentioned on the Government Accountability Project’s (GAP) Daily Whistleblower News blog.

Cover of January 16, 2011 print edition of Air Force Times

The Air Force Times and the other Gannet publications are weekly newspapers that serve active, reserve, and retired members of the U.S. military and their families by providing news and analysis that is relevant to members of the military community.  The newspapers are among the most widely purchased publications on U.S. military bases and other military installations and, together, have an average weekly circulation of over 240,000.

The article highlighted a current case that arose following allegations that a whistleblower was fired from a VA facility in Northport, New York after complaining about unsafe patient practices and hazardous working conditions. The Employment Law Group® law firm attorney Dave Scher noted that the U.S. Office of Special Counsel substantiated the allegations and that “the special counsel herself went out of her way to praise [the whistleblower’s] courage in a press release.”

The article also profiled other cases in which The Employment Law Group® law firm has advocated for whistleblowers’ rights by assisting VA doctors who claim that “they were fired or harassed for speaking out about problems affecting patient care”.  In these cases, said Scher, the “former healthcare professionals attempted to point out the dangers patients were facing at VA medical facilities.”

“How such rampant disregard for regulations and respect for patients took place is a travesty.  The whistleblowers are stepping forward to protect these patients’ rights as well as their own.”

The original article, entitled “Whistle-blowers Sue VA, Claim Reprisal”, appeared in the January 16, 2012 print edition of the Air Force Times.

The Employment Law Group® law firm has an extensive nationwide whistleblower practice  representing employees who have been victims of retaliation.

Commenting on the case of Dr. Colin Clarke, a whistleblower who was fired after filing a complaining about unsafe patient practices and dangerous working conditions at the Northport, New York VA Medical Center, attorney Dave Scher noted that in November 2011, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel substantiated the allegations and that “the special counsel herself went out of her way to praise [Dr. Clarke’s] courage in a press release.”

The Air Force Times feature article also profiled other cases in which The Employment Law Group® law firm has been involved in assisting VA doctors who claim that “they were fired or harassed for speaking out about problems affecting patient care”.

Specifically, the article mentioned the case of Shen v. Shinseki, in which The Employment Law Group® law firm succeeding in obtaining a rare order from a federal court that prohibited the VA from terminating a Title 38 physician while her complaint was pending.

Additionally, The Employment Law Group® law firm currently represents Dr. Shanker Raja who alleges that patients received improper doses of radiation, and the firm also helped Dr. Carolyn Gaston overturn her suspension after she was suspended for treating critical patients before those with nonthreatening illnesses in a VA medical center emergency room which she claimed was understaffed.

Principal Attorney Scher noted that such management problems frequently occur throughout the VA and that often times “supervisors either don’t know the rules, they don’t follow the rules or they don’t care.”

The article, entitled “Whistle-blowers Sue VA, Claim Reprisal”, appeared in the January 16, 2012 edition of the Air Force Times.

Under the CWPA, a state employee must file an administrative claim with the State Personnel Board (SPB), which would then investigate the claim. For state university employees, they must file their claims either to their supervisor or to an internal staff member before they take the matter to a civil court.

If the claimant is seeking damages, the CWPA stipulates that after the State Personnel Board investigates, the employee must bring the matter to the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board. The board has 45 days to respond to a claim and if it the board rejects the claim, the claimant (employee) has six months to file a lawsuit.  If the board denies the claim because there was no timely response, the claimant has two years to bring the issue before a court.

Oswald and Scher recommend that employees and whistleblowers file their complaints with both the SPB and the claims board. They also recommend that due to the complexities involved, only attorneys with strong knowledge of the administrative requirements of the CWPA handle these cases.

As a general proposition, it’s part of a parade of horribles big business has raised.  If corporations are not engaging in violations of securities laws, they don’t have anything to worry about.

Established in July under the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC whistleblower reward program requires the SEC to reward whistleblowers up to 30% for information regarding fraud that leads to a recovery exceeding $1 million.  Whistleblowers are not required to disclose the violation to their employer through a Sarbanes-Oxley mandated internal compliance program, but newly proposed SEC rules may increase the whistleblower’s reward for disclosing to their employer first.  For more information about The Employment Law Group® and its SEC Whistleblower Practice, click here.

• The whistleblower reward provisions;
• The scope of the new whistleblower ant-retaliation provisions;
• The amendments to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and False Claims Act;
• Tips for employers to prevent retaliation claims;
• Tips for plaintiffs regarding claim and forum selection; and
• The impact of the new provisions on internal reporting.

Click here for more information about this D.C. Bar event.

Nelnet reached a settlement with the Department of Education under which the company would stop receiving overpayments.  However, the agreement did not require Nelnet to return any of the nearly $1 billion in overpayments it had already received.  In its brief, the U.S. Department of Justice stated, “. . . it is clear from statutory and other authority that Congress has committed exclusive authority to settle claims of fraud, including FCA claims, to the Attorney General” and furthermore that Nelnet has not presented evidence that the Department of Education even intended to release the company from FCA liability.  For the full brief, click here.

The plaintiff is represented by Wiley Rein LLP and The Employment Law Group® law firm.  For more information about the firm’s Whistleblower Law 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.

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.

Mr. Feldman is represented by The Employment Law Group® law firm.  To learn more about the 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. 

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.

 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.