Articles Tagged with attorney for government fraud whistleblowers

dylan-nolte-576808-unsplash-copy-300x200Whistleblowers are one of the most misunderstood groups of people out there. From an outsider’s perspective, it can be difficult to understand why someone would want to be a whistleblower – and that is the first problem. Whistleblowers hardly ever choose to become whistleblowers. They happen to encounter situations that, in their mind, call for a solution that will promote justice and better society. If any of the myths below resonate with you, read on to find out why it is a myth, and what the truth really is.

Myth #1: Whistleblowers are disloyal.

Oftentimes, whistleblowers are referred to as “snitches” and disloyal employees, but quite the opposite is true. Whistleblowers are oftentimes the most loyal employees at a company.

hannah-olinger-549280-unsplash-copy-200x300If you are considering filing a whistleblower case in California, you are probably wondering what the process looks like and how long it will take. Unfortunately there is not a clear-cut answer to how long a whistleblower case can take, as there are so many factors that can influence the length of the case. While the steps below are a general outline of the life of a whistleblower case, the only way to get a clear picture of what your case will look like and how long it will take is to consult with an experienced whistleblower attorney in your area.

Step 1: File the whistleblower complaint.

The first step is to file your whistleblower complaint. In order to file a successful whistleblower complaint, you want to have gathered as much evidence as possible. Once you gather all the evidence you can gather, it typically will take your attorney several months to pull together all the information and formulate a convincing whistleblower complaint. However, the length of time it takes for your attorney to draft your complaint depends on the following factors:

kristina-flour-185592-unsplash-copy-300x192One of the most crucial parts of filing a whistleblower or qui tam lawsuit is evidence gathering. The more evidence you have of the fraud you are alleging, the stronger your case is and the more likely the government is to intervene. However, gathering evidence is not always as easy as it sounds. Sometimes there are crucial pieces of evidence needed in your case that you do not already have but that you have the potential to obtain. In this situation, you will want to make sure you go about collecting evidence in a lawful and ethical fashion. After all, the last thing you want is to break the law while you are reporting someone else for breaking the law.

Stay Quiet

The most important piece of advice is to stay quiet. Do not talk about the fraud you are alleging with your co-workers, friends, or family. Even though it is illegal for employers in California to retaliate against whistleblowers, plenty of employers do it anyway. Not only is losing your job during this time damaging to your personal life, but it is damaging to your case, as well. Without the access you previously had to the company, it will be nearly impossible for you to continue gathering evidence to support your claim.

david-everett-strickler-196946-copy-300x195The government only chooses to intervene in whistleblower cases that it finds to be strong and in which it has an interest. By presenting your qui tam case in a strategic way, you can catch the eye of the government and encourage them to intervene. Below are several practical tips for strengthening your qui tam case and increasing your chances of getting the government involved in your case.

Gather Compelling Evidence

The most important thing the government is going to look for in your qui tam case is whether you have compelling evidence. A mere allegation alone means nothing if it is not also accompanied by hard evidence of the fraud you are alleging was committed.

samson-duborg-rankin-91091-unsplash-copy-300x200One of the biggest fears many employees have when deciding whether to blow the whistle on their employer’s illegal conduct is employer retaliation. No one wants to rat out an employer when it means he or she will be fired from a job. Luckily, California has whistleblower protection laws in place that make it illegal for employers to retaliate against their employees for being a whistleblower. However, these laws do not always stop employers from retaliating against their employees, especially in more subtle ways. Rather than firing a whistleblower employee, which is obvious employer retaliation, an employer may try to push an employee out in more subtle ways. If you believe you may have been the subject of employer retaliation after blowing the whistle on your employer’s illegal conduct, contact the whistleblower lawyers at Willoughby Brod today to find out how we can help.

Six Ways Your Employer May Try to Retaliate Against You

While pushing you out of the company in more subtle ways, your employer may try to convince you that what they are doing is not considered employer retaliation at all. By making yourself knowledgeable about some of the most common ways employers try to push employees out, you can better equip yourself to recognize employer retaliation when it happens to you.

christina-sicoli-19892-copy-300x212Whistleblower George Gage has made it clear he is not happy with the current judge for his qui tam case, U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks. Gage claims that throughout his False Claims Act (FCA) case against Rolls-Royce North America Inc., Judge Sparks has handed down orders that attempt to divest him of jurisdiction in order to try and have Gage’s case thrown out before Rolls-Royce submitted an answer. He has tried two different ways to obtain a different judge on his case and each time has failed. That is because it takes a great deal of evidence of bias or impartiality to get a judge taken off a case.

If you are currently part of a qui tam case and believe the judge is not able to be partial, contact the experienced California qui tam attorneys of Brod Law Firm as soon as possible.

Gage’s Attempts for a New Judge

jerry-kiesewetter-210547-copy-300x199The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced on June 7 that the U.S. is intervening in a qui tam suit against Los Angeles and CRA/LA, formerly known as the Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, regarding allegations that the city and organization falsely certified that they were compliant with federal accessible housing laws to obtain grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In short, the U.S. is joining a lawsuit that alleges the city and its agency unlawfully gained and misused federal funds. If the U.S. and whistleblowers are successful, the settlement or judgement could amount to millions of dollars.

An FCA Claim Against L.A.

The qui tam suit was brought under the False Claims Act (FCA) by Mei Ling, a Los Angeles resident who uses a wheelchair, and the Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, (the Council), a local nonprofit. Ling and the Council provided evidence to the court that L.A. and CRA/LA repeatedly lied to HUD about building accessible housing for people with disabilities. Instead, the defendants used federal grants to build housing that violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Fair Housing Act. The whistleblowers also argue that the defendants violated their affirmative duty to provide people with disabilities fair and equal access to public housing.

claire-anderson-60670-copy-300x200The Ninth Circuit recently held that a whistleblower could not intervene in a False Claims Act (FCA) suit filed by the U.S. despite it being based on allegations the whistleblower previously made in a lawsuit that was dismissed. This is another a holding that shows relators in qui tam cases do not get second chances. If the FCA cases to which they are a party do not directly lead to a settlement or jury award, the whistleblowers cannot recover any compensation.

Background for the Decision

In 2009, John Prather filed a qui tam action against Sprint and others stating the businesses overcharged the U.S. for wiretapping services. As in all qui tam cases, the U.S. government has time to investigate the allegations and then choose whether to intervene and become a formal party to the case or not intervene. In this case, the U.S. did not intervene and later the district court dismissed the relator’s claim because it determined he was not an original source for the information that led to the allegations.

https://www.healthcare-fraud-lawyer.com/files/2017/04/DETAIL_OF_STEAM_WHISTLE_-_Anderson-Christofani_Shipyard_Innes_Avenue_and_Griffith_Street_San_Francisco_San_Francisco_County_CA_HAER_CAL38-SANFRA139-18.tif_-213x300.jpgQui tam claims are lawsuits filed by private citizens on behalf of the federal government based on allegations that someone violated the False Claims Act (FCA) or another federal statute. Most of the time these types of claims are brought by employees, or ex-employees, who were able to gather evidence of false claims made by their employer to the government. Qui tam cases are complicated, and it is crucial that you, as a whistleblower, work with an experienced California qui tam lawyer and understands the legal process you are about to undergo.

If you believe you have evidence of fraud against the government, call the Brod Law Firm to learn about what to do next.

An Overview of the Qui Tam Process

file9391313432751-225x300There was an unexpected outcome in the unique case of Wadler v. Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., et al., when a federal judge in the Northern District of California ruled the Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank Acts’ whistleblower protections preempted attorney-client privilege. This ruling allowed Sanford Wadler, the former general counsel of Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., to bring file a whistleblower action against his previous employer, take the case through trial, and receive compensatory and punitive damages.

Wadler v. Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., et al.

In 2015, Wadler brought a lawsuit against Bio-Rad for firing him in retaliation for investigating potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) in China and taking his concerns to the company’s audit committee. These concerns arose after the company’s officers learned in 2009 that there were FCPA violations in Vietnam, Thailand, and Russia. The company determined that it needed to investigate whether similar violations occurred in China. An outside law firm determined there was no evidence of FCPA violations in China. However, Wadler believed this was not actually the case and continued to look into these issues, even going to the company’s audit committee about them.