Category: Whistleblower Retaliation

Philadelphia Whistleblower Lawyers: Enforcement Action Leads to $3.5M Award

By ,

SPG

A whistleblower was recently awarded approximately $3.5 million by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for shining a light on wrongdoing that led to a successful enforcement action. According to the SEC – which did not name the whistleblower nor identify the wrongdoer – tips from whistleblowers have led to the recovery of $874 million in financial remedies since the SEC whistleblower program was created in 2012.

Many Americans remain unaware of the financial incentives available to conscientious employees who report their employer’s fraudulent behavior. Whistleblower protection extends to any worker who alerts government regulators to a variety of wrongdoing, including violations of the False Claims Act, the Clean Air Act, the Dodd-Frank Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and many other federal statutes. A whistleblower is granted complete confidentiality by the government when the information disclosed leads to a successful enforcement action. Moreover, if monetary sanctions issued against a wrongdoer exceed $1 million, a whistleblower is entitled to an award ranging between 10 percent and 30 percent of the sanction.

Proceeding as a Whistleblower in Pennsylvania

Whistleblowers must proceed with caution and limit discussions of their concerns with coworkers. Instead, if an employee has a good faith belief that their employer has defrauded the government or consumers, they should first seek counsel from a lawyer who will ensure that whistleblower protections are in place before regulators are contacted. An employer who suspects that a member of their workforce is in talks with the SEC or other government officials may attempt to short-circuit an investigation by taking retaliatory action against a whistleblower. Fortunately, pursuant to the federal Whistleblower Protection Program, when a whistleblower’s actions lead to an enforcement action, the whistleblower is entitled to reinstatement to their previous position in addition to the aforementioned monetary award.

Philadelphia Whistleblower Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. Offer Reliable, Trustworthy Representation

Philadelphia whistleblower lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. understand the concerns of conscientious employees in their effort to shed light on wrongdoing by an employer. If you or a loved one has information relating to a potential whistleblower claim, call 215-574-0600 or contact us online to learn more about how we can help. At our Philadelphia offices, we proudly serve whistleblower clients throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania as well as South Jersey.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Discrimination Claims Dismissed for not Meeting Filing Requirements

By ,

SPG

In a recent Third Circuit opinion, the Court ruled that Susan Vangjeli, a former municipal library guard at the Philadelphia Free Library did not properly raise her discrimination claims as required by law. Vangjeli made claims for discrimination, retaliation, and harassment, based on her gender, in violation of Title VII.

 

Vangjeli initiated against the City of Philadelphia and Free Library of Philadelphia suit after observing two male employees receive promotions to full-time jobs, while she continued to be a seasonal employee. The City of Philadelphia and Free Library of Philadelphia moved to dismiss the claim, which was granted by the Trial Court and ultimately upheld by the Third Circuit as well. The court noted numerous deficiencies with appellant’s complaint most notably that she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before proceeding with the Courts. When complaining of unlawful employment practices, one must first file with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 180 days, or file with a state agency within 300 days. Here, Vangjeli failed to file in proper time by waiting more than one year to file with the EEOC.

For more information on discrimination and retaliation claims call the Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at  215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers: New Jersey Cops Settle Whistleblower Case for $400,000

By ,

SPG

In 2011, then-Detective Sergeant John A. Hamilton and then-Captain Douglas F. Carmen filed suit against the Linwood Police Department in New Jersey, alleging that Chief Jim Baker’s behavior created a hostile and retaliatory work environment. Among many allegations, the lawsuit claims Chief Baker asked the two officers to lie about police protection that was afforded to a woman who was later stabbed to death. The allegations also claim Chief Baker influenced one of the officers to make a deal that would favor Chief Baker and hurt other officers, as well as Chief Baker taking away the two officers’ chance to work overtime despite having a contractual right to overtime pay.

 

Many of these instances that disparaged the reputations of both officers occurred over phone conversations that were recorded. The ex-Detective Sergeant Hamilton was also passed over for a less qualified candidate for the position of Chief when Baker retired (ex-Detective Sergeant Hamilton did become chief in March of 2015 when Baker retired). Ultimately, the suit was settled against the city for $400,000.

For more information about whistleblower claims, call Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Whistleblower Lawyers: Ernst & Young Qui Tam Case

By ,

SPG

A Ninth Circuit panel upheld their decision to dismiss a Qui Tam action filed against the now defunct Corinthian Colleges and their accountant, Ernst & Young. The two employees who filed the suit claim that both these institutions defrauded the federal government out of billions in education funds from the Higher Education Act through the misuse of quota-based requirement practices.

In addition to standing by their dismissal, the panel also reversed sanctions for $1.5 million against the attorney of the two whistleblowers for what was originally deemed as being a “frivolous” suit.

The two workers whose case was dismissed in 2009 and again in 2013 tried to revive it a third time in May of 2016, claiming that the lower court had not examined any key evidence.

In the previous dismissal, the college stood by its claim that the plaintiff’s attorneys recruited the two employees for the case knowing that they failed to pass two crucial tests required to pursue False Claims Act (FCA) violations: firsthand knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing and an ability to present claims that have never been publicly disclosed. In this instance, both employees could not prove that they had firsthand knowledge and the college’s practices had already been disclosed to the government in a similar 2005 case.

Federal whistleblower law protects those who report, either verbally or in writing, to the government any waste or misuse of federal funds by an employer from retaliation or discrimination. Depending on the ruling rendered, an employee may be entitled to between 15 and 25 percent of what the government recovers from its losses. If the government does not wish to proceed with a case, the employee can pursue a claim themselves.

Philadelphia Whistleblower Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Offer Counsel in Qui Tam Actions

If you or someone you know wishes to report the misuse or waste of government funds or has been retaliated against for doing so, Philadelphia whistleblower lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green can advocate for you. Individuals who have reported False Claims Act violations in good faith should not fear intimidation at the hands of an employer and their lawyers. We will aggressively fight for you. To schedule a consultation, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today. With offices located in Philadelphia, we fight for the rights of whistleblowers throughout Pennsylvania and South Jersey.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: VA Employee Wins Suit Against Pennsylvania County After Being Terminated for Political Affiliation

By ,

SPG

In Wren v. County of Luzerne, No. 3:11-CV-1769 (M.D. Pa. May 12, 2016), Richard Wren, the Director of Luzerne County’s Veterans Affairs Department, claimed he was terminated for his support of a county commissioner. Two other county commissioners, who opposed the commissioner that Wren supported, began to terminate employees like Wren from county positions. Following his termination, Wren sued the county alleging that they violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments under the Civil Rights Act, Section 1983, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.

The county argued that Wren’s termination was based on non-retaliatory reasons. Specifically, the county presented evidence that Wren had falsified a receipt, which they stated was immediate grounds for dismissal. Wren argued that the county used the falsified receipt as a pretext to terminate him. As evidence that he was terminated strictly for his political affiliations, Wren pointed to the fact that he was never subjected to any disciplinary action before being terminated. He sought to recover $106,000 in back pay and compensatory damages. The jury found that Wren’s political affiliation was a substantial or motivating factor for his termination and awarded him $200,000.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Represent Employees in Cases Involving a Wrongful Termination

If you believe that you have been retaliated against or wrongfully terminated because of your political affiliation or other unjust causes, you may be entitled to file a claim against your employer. Contact the law firm of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green by calling 215-574-0600 today to schedule a confidential consultation with one of our experienced and highly skilled Philadelphia employment lawyers or contact us online.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Bank of America Discrimination Claim

By ,

SPG

A female banker at Bank of America has filed a lawsuit against her employer, alleging that the company underpays female employees, and that she was retaliated against for speaking up about the company’s illegal and unethical business practices. The banker, a 42-year-old single mother of three children, is seeking over six million dollars plus punitive damages and additional compensation. She filed suit in a Manhattan federal court, where many other cases are pending against Wall Street banks alleging similar claims.

The complainant asserts that during her tenure at Bank of America she suffered from an egregious pay disparity in comparison to her male coworkers, being paid less than half than the man who shares the same title she does.

In addition, she claims that the bank condoned acts of discriminatory conduct committed by her boss, and violated the federal Dodd-Frank whistleblower protections by suspending her after she made complaints about alleged illegal activity that harmed clients of the bank.

She alleges that she was treated more like an intern than a valued employee, and was asked demeaning questions such as whether her eyes have always been so blue. She also claims that she was banned from attending important client events.

She has accused the bank of other unlawful activities unrelated to discriminatory practices, such as refusing to tell regulators how a colleague falsified trading records to conceal lies he told a major client about prices. She claims that the man who held her same title (structured products chief) was “front running” by purchasing bonds for Bank of America despite knowing that a competitor wanted them, and rigging a debt auction to benefit a favored hedge fund in which Bank of America also participated.

In response, a spokesman for the Bank of America has stated that the company takes all allegations of inappropriate behavior seriously and investigates them thoroughly.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Fight Unlawful Sex and Gender Discrimination

If you or someone you know has been the victim of unlawful discrimination or retaliation, the respected Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green can help you pursue legal action to hold the responsible parties accountable. To schedule a consultation, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today. With offices conveniently located in Philadelphia, we represent businesses throughout Pennsylvania and South Jersey.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: CEO Harassment Allegations

By ,

SPG

A former president of an Omnicom ad agency has sued the company’s CEO, Alexei Orlov, claiming that he was terminated in retaliation for complaining about Orlov’s harassing behavior. The plaintiff filed suit recently in a Los Angeles court, seeking damages and alleging a violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation; retaliation in violation of the California Labor Code; and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The case echoes another recent ad agency discrimination lawsuit where the chief communications officer of J. Walter Thompson accused the CEO of making racial and sexist slurs.

According to the Omnicon lawsuit, at one time Orlov pressured a young female employee who worked on the company’s Pfizer account to get him free Viagra directly from Pfizer, telling her that he needed the medication because he had a young wife.

The plaintiff also claims that Orlov failed to promote a female employee to the position of managing director because she was “too pretty” and no one would take her seriously.

Allegedly, after the plaintiff complained to Orlov about a drunken male co-worker who made inappropriate comments about a female coworker, Orlov dismissed the complaint because he did not want to see the employee reprimanded.

Orlov also allegedly made anti-Semitic comments to a Jewish employee, saying he was miserly with money because he was Jewish.

The plaintiff claims that after complaining to the agency’s global head of human resources and encouraging other staff members to do so, Orlov sent him a text message asking him why he did not first call him directly before going over his head. Less than a month later, the plaintiff was terminated.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Fight for Victims of Harassment and Retaliation

If you are facing harassment or discrimination at work, there are certain steps you can take to protect your rights. The experienced Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green handle all types of employment-related claims, including retaliation, wrongful termination, sexual harassment, EEOC claims, wage and hour/overtime violations, and more. If you are being harassed, check your company’s reporting requirements and report your concerns to the party designated to receive complaints. To speak to a qualified lawyer about your case, call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online today. With offices conveniently located in Philadelphia, we represent clients throughout Southeastern Pennsylvania and South Jersey.

Philadelphia Whistleblower Lawyers: Whistleblowing Cause of Termination

By ,

SPG

Pennsylvania Plaintiff Fails to Demonstrate that Whistleblowing Caused Her Termination

Although Pennsylvania lacks a common law action for wrongful termination of at-will employees, such employees may have a cause of action in several limited circumstances. For a wrongful termination claim to be viable, the at-will employee must show that the termination violates a clear mandate of public policy.

In the recent Pennsylvania case, Auman v. Family Planning Plus, Plaintiff, an at-will employee of Family Planning Plus accused her employer of terminating her for whistleblowing. Plaintiff made a claim under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law (“PWL”) – a public policy exception to the at will doctrine. To be successful under the PWL, Plaintiff needed to show both a protected report of wrongdoing and a connection between the report and termination showing cause.

Plaintiff made several allegations of misconduct on the part of her employer and filed complaints against Family Planning Plus.  However, the Court ruled that Plaintiff’s accusations did not show concrete facts linking the whistleblowing to her termination. Plaintiff was not specifically directed to not file a report, and the Court found that there was no indication that her whistleblowing caused any adverse action toward Plaintiff. The Court stated that vague and inconclusive circumstantial evidence fails to satisfy this initial burden. If Plaintiff had shown that her whistleblowing negatively affected her career and resulted in her termination, the burden would have shifted to Family Planning Plus to show a separate and legitimate reason for the adverse action suffered by Plaintiff.

For more information on employment law and retaliation matters, call our employment lawyers in Philadelphia at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers: Retaliation Claim Proceeds in Court

By ,

SPG

Eastern District of Pennsylvania Allows Employee’s Retaliation Claims to Proceed

In Betz v. Temple Health Systems the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled in favor of Plaintiff, allowing her to proceed with her retaliation claim against Defendant Temple Health Systems.

While working at Temple Health Systems, Plaintiff, a registered nurse, repeatedly complained to her supervisors and executive management about persistent sexual harassment, inappropriate touching and groping. Temple Health Systems Plaintiff’s allegations and determined that her complaints did not amount to sexual harassment or retaliation. Plaintiff then filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Shortly thereafter, Temple Health Systems suspended and then fired Plaintiff. Temple Health Systems alleged that the suspension and termination were not in retaliation for Plaintiff’s complaints, but rather the result of a serious medical error that Plaintiff committed, which she subsequently attempted to hide by altering patient records.

In Betz, the Court found that “the employer’s statements in combination with the relatively short timeframe between the filing of the employee’s EEOC charge and her suspension formed the basis for establishing a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII and the PHRA.” The Court also found that the Temple Health System’s proffered reason was sufficient to allow a factfinder to conclude that the employer suspended and terminated the employee for a legitimate non-discriminatory reason. However, the Court found there was sufficient evince of pretext because a factfinder could reasonably draw such a conclusion because a manager told Plaintiff that she would be fired if she kept on complaining, and that ‘[i]f you don’t shut your mouth, you’re next because you already complained and we’re sick of hearing from you’; and after the employee filed her EEOC Charge, the manager told her that she ‘made a big mistake by going to the EEOC.’”

For more information on employment law matters, call our employment lawyers in Philadelphia at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

Philadelphia Whistleblower Lawyers: Endo Pharmaceuticals Whistleblower to Receive $33.6 Million

By ,

SPG

Endo Pharmaceuticals whistleblower Peggy Ryan has been awarded $33.6 million as a result of the qui tam complaint she filed against the company in 2005. Ryan’s payout constitutes roughly 24% of the federal government’s cut of the $171.9 million settlement Endo agreed to pay for illegally promoting the drug Lidoderm for off-label use.

While the U.S. Government disputes the 24% figure, arguing that she should receive only 19%, U.S. District Judge Robert F. Kelly ruled that Ryan’s “extraordinary” contributions to the near decade-long litigation merited a larger sum. In his memorandum, Judge Kelly noted that Ryan “nurtured the flame at the darkest times when a favorable outcome seemed most remote” and “enabled the government investigatory team to recover evidence which would have otherwise been unobtainable”.

In a statement to the Legal Intelligencer, Peggy Ryan’s attorney wrote, “It is never easy to be a whistleblower, especially when a case goes on for a decade, but Ms. Ryan has remained dedicated to the cause of exposing fraud…We hope Judge Kelly’s decision to grant Ms. Ryan close to the maximum percentage will encourage other individuals with evidence of fraud against the government to come forward.”

Philadelphia Whistleblower Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green protect those who expose Fraudulent Government Practices

Qui Tam Lawyers in Philadelphia at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green have extensive experience protecting whistleblowers who have evidence of fraud against the government. Whistleblowers often have information and evidence that would otherwise be unobtainable, however it takes a great deal of courage to come forward. Our Philadelphia whistleblower lawyers understand that disclosing fraudulent behavior puts employees in a vulnerable position. For knowledgeable legal counsel regarding whistleblower actions, call our Philadelphia, Pennsylvania law offices at 215-574-0600 to schedule a consultation or submit an inquiry online.