About Our Firm

Best Law FirmsThe Employment Law Group® law firm represents employees who stand up to wrongdoing in the workplace. If you did the right thing but were punished as a result — even fired — 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.

Disclaimer

THE RESULTS OF ALL CASES DEPEND ON A VARIETY OF FACTORS UNIQUE TO EACH CASE. PAST SUCCESSES DO NOT PREDICT OR GUARANTEE FUTURE RESULTS.

The Employment Law Group, P.C. produces this blog to provide general news and information about the field of employment law; the blog does not contain any legal advice upon which you should rely or act. If you need advice on a particular issue or problem, please contact an attorney. Use of this Web site does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and The Employment Law Group.

Maryland’s High Court Finalizes Verdict In “Cat’s Paw” Case

DISCLAIMER: 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 SUCCESSES.

Maryland’s highest court finalized the reinstatement of a jury’s $650,000 award to Donna Jackson for her former employer’s retaliation after she reported a subordinate’s gender discrimination complaint.

By declining to review a lower court decision, the Maryland Court of Appeals also solidified the state’s adoption of “cat’s paw” liability, under which an employer may be held liable for retaliation against an employee even if the actual decision-maker was unaware of a retaliatory motive.

Ms. Jackson was represented by The Employment Law Group® law firm.

read more…

Tax Court Sheds Light on Whistleblower’s Denied Award

What can whistleblowers do when the IRS Whistleblower Office denies them an award for helping the government to recover money from a suspected tax cheat?

They can do what Albert G. Hill, III, did — challenge the denial in tax court.

But such challenges are difficult without access to information that the IRS used to deny the award in its often-opaque decision process. In Mr. Hill’s case, the IRS took a common — yet extreme — position on taxpayer confidentiality, refusing to allow Mr. Hill to review documents from the administrative file of the taxpayer he had targeted.

This week the U.S. Tax Court ordered the IRS to hand over the documents under strict conditions — and, in doing so, provided a sensible model for how such appeals should be handled.

read more…

Fifth Circuit Narrows Definition of “Whistleblower” Under Dodd-Frank

By holding the Dodd-Frank  Act to a literal reading of its language — and rejecting any consideration of the statute’s goals — a federal appeals court has set up a battle over who may claim protection as a corporate “whistleblower” under the law.

“We start and end our analysis with the text of the relevant statute,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said in Asadi v. G.E. Energy (USA) L.L.C. — and indeed, the court parsed Dodd-Frank with the cold eye of a professional copy editor, concluding that the law protects employees against retaliation only if they have reported corporate wrongdoing to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) via prescribed channels.

read more…

MSPB: New Whistleblower Standard Applies to Pending Cases

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) ruled that a key provision of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA) should apply retroactively to any federal whistleblower case that was pending on the effective date of the statute: December 27, 2012.

The decision in Day v. Department of Homeland Security—which the MSPB said would affect a “substantial number” of cases—concerned Section 101 of the WPEA, which offers protection to federal employees who face retaliation for disclosing government wrongdoing under certain circumstances.

read more…

Maryland Appeals Court Restores $650,000 Jury Verdict for Whistleblower

DISCLAIMER: 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 SUCCESSES.

A Maryland appeals court has reinstated a jury’s 2011 award of $650,000 to Donna Jackson, a plaintiff represented by The Employment Law Group® law firm, for her former employer’s retaliation after she reported a subordinate’s gender discrimination complaint.

read more…

ARB Again Holds that SOX Protects Employees Who Warn of Future Wrongdoing

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board (ARB) upheld all aspects of a $1.2 million award to a whistleblower in a retaliation case under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), echoing a recent Third Circuit decision and lending further authority to the ARB’s landmark Sylvester decision from 2011.

In Barrett v. e-Smart Technologies Inc., the ARB again held that SOX bans retaliation against employees who flag illegal activity that they believe is likely to occur — not just illegal activity that is already occurring.

read more…

Tax Court Blasts IRS for ‘Obfuscation’ in Whistleblower Case

In an unusually blunt opinion, the U.S. Tax Court rebuked the Internal Revenue Service for continuing to fight award claims made by two anonymous whistleblowers — even as the agency was reopening the same claims in a related investigation.

In a dismissal order issued on May 10, 2013, Judge Maurice Foley slammed the IRS for providing “incomplete, misleading, and possibly inaccurate information” in the case.

read more…

Court Won’t Review Wiest; “Reasonable Belief” Is Law in Third Circuit

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit won’t grant an en banc review of an earlier panel decision that made it easier for whistleblowers to claim protection under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX).

As a result, SOX whistleblowers in that jurisdiction — which includes Pennsylvania and Delaware — now are shielded from retaliation as long as they acted under a “reasonable belief” that their company was acting fraudulently.

read more…

University of California Pays $1.2 Million to Settle Medicare Fraud Claims

The University of California will pay $1.2 million to settle a whistleblower’s claims that one of its teaching hospitals submitted false Medicare and Medicaid claims.

Dennis O’Connor, a former professor and anesthesiologist at U.C. Irvine (UCI), will receive $120,000 for his role in the case; the remainder goes to the U.S. government. In his lawsuit, Dr. O’Connor alleged that UCI routinely gave patients anesthesia without a doctor being present, in violation of federal requirements.

read more…

About This Blog

The Employment Law Group, P.C. produces this blog to provide general news and information about the field of employment law.

Editor-in-Chief
R. Scott Oswald
Managing Principal
The Employment Law Group

Managing Editor
Laurence Hooper

Contributors
Max Bernas
Anita Mazumdar Chambers
Setareh Ebrahimian
Drew Howell
Matt Purushotham
Nicole Raviele
Tim Sheehan