Reversing a lower court decision, the D.C. Circuit recently concluded – for a second time – that certain internal audit documents are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client communication and work production privileges. On August 11, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued a second writ of mandamus regarding the same group
The Department of Defense (DoD) recently adopted a final rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS). The rule implements increased whistleblower protections for contractor and subcontractor employees from Section 827 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.
The rule broadens and clarifies whistleblower protections for
On September 27, 2013, the Department of Defense, General Services Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration announced interim rules in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (“FAR”) and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement (“DFAR”) outlining enhancements to whistleblower protections for contractor employees (the “Program”). The interim rules implement Section 828 of the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) for Fiscal Year 2013, which went into effect on July 1, 2013. The interim rules create a four-year pilot program for executive agencies subject to the Public Contracts section of the United States Code (“Title 41 agencies”) and make extensive changes to whistleblower protection for agencies subject to the Armed Forces section of the United States Code (“Title 10 agencies”). The interim rules also create a whistleblower exemption for portions of the intelligence community subject to the National Security Act of 1947 (“Title 50 agencies.”)
Yesterday a significant expansion of whistleblower protections for employees of federal contractors and subcontractors took effect. The National Defense Authorization Act for 2013 (“NDAA”) extended whistleblower protections to an employee of a “contractor, subcontractor, or grantee” who makes a claim of gross mismanagement, gross waste, abuse of authority, a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or a violation of a law, rule, or regulation related to a federal contract. These protections do not apply to a disclosure related to an “element of the intelligence community” under the National Security Act of 1984.
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.