On October 18, 2017, a federal district judge in Alaska ordered a former employee to pay nearly $170,000 of his ex-employer’s legal fees as sanction for removing nine attorney-client privileged documents prior to his termination. The ruling was based on a decision this summer that the former employee willfully and
Please join us on Tuesday, February 25 for a Webinar addressing the many significant developments in 2013 in federal and state whistleblower legislation and litigation, with a particular emphasis on Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) and False Claims Act (FCA) developments. Our speakers will also offer practical advice to employers regarding preparing for…
This blog entry was written by Connie N. Bertram, who represented the defendant contractors in the proceedings before the district court.
Plaintiff, former engineer for defendant Impact Science & Technology, Inc. (IST), brought suit against IST and related entities under the whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act (FCA) in 2007. A federal district court in Maryland granted summary judgment in favor of IST, finding that the plaintiff had not satisfied any of the elements of a claim under the FCA. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision on March 21, finding that the plaintiff’s internal complaints and discussions regarding heat testing on module used in a CIED system and discussions with the government about those complaints were not activities protected under the FCA.