Category: Whistleblower Retaliation


Philadelphia Whistleblower Lawyers : Vanguard Accused of $1 Billion Tax Fraud

By ,

SPG

The city of Philadelphia is home to one of the most active jurisdictions for Qui Tam lawsuits. A Quit Tam suit is a type of lawsuit brought by a third party whistleblower on behalf of the government. In the United States, under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq., “an individual with knowledge past or present of fraud committed against the federal government may bring suit its behalf”. If their case recovers funds for the government, a whistleblower can be awarded substantial sums of money as a percentage of the settlement.

Pennsylvania based investment company Vanguard Group, which manages nearly $3 trillion in assets, is currently in the midst of a qui tam suit brought by its former employee David Danon, who alleges that the company illegally manipulated transfer pricing to keep costs artificially low. Danon’s suit states that after expressing serious concerns about the transfer pricing arrangements, the company brushed aside his concerns and eventually fired him.

Vanguard filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that as a former tax attorney for the company, Danon cannot file suit against them. Furthermore, Vanguard alleges that Danon improperly used privilege and confidential information to bring the suit.

The lead counsel in Danon’s suit, Stephen Sorenson of Thomas, Alexander & Forrester LLP remains optimistic about the suit, stating in an interview with Forbes Magazine that he is hoping for a hearing by early next year. The suit alleges a violation of federal and state tax laws, costing taxpayers more than $1 billion.

Philadelphia qui tam lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus and Green represent third party whistleblowers throughout Philadelphia and New Jersey.  If you or someone you know needs a whistleblower lawyer in Philadelphia call Sidkoff, Pincus and Green at 215-574-0600, or complete and online contact form to schedule a consultation today.

Philadelphia Whistleblower Lawyers: OSHA’s Enforcement of Whistleblower Protection Laws

By ,

SPG

Earlier this month, OSHA secured an injunction in a whistleblower case that prevents the Lear Corporation – a Michigan-based auto parts company – from any further retaliation against whistleblower, Kimberly King. This injunction is significant in that it protects Ms. King, and other whistleblowers, from speaking out against the company, including disclosures to media outlets.

Kimberly King worked at the Renosol Seating plant in Selma, Alabama, which is owned by the Lear Corporation. The plant produces foam cushions that are used in car seats. When King’s health began to deteriorate, she began to question the effects of her exposure to a chemical called toluene diisocyanate, or TDI. Since she started working at the plant in 2004, King has developed asthma, and often gets winded from walking up one flight of stairs. Although Lear reported that TDI levels were within legal limits, King remained unconvinced and shared her concerns with the media.

King told her story to NBC.com, who released an article discussing the correlation between TDI, and other workplace chemicals, and respiratory conditions like asthma. A consulting physician concluded that the levels of TDI antibodies in King’s blood placed her in the top 25%. According an occupational health specialist at the University Of Cincinnati College Of Medicine, workers can become sensitized when exposed to these chemicals. As a result, exposure to even small amounts of TDI can cause health issues like asthma and other respiratory conditions.

Lear suspended King from work without pay after she and another employee participated in a YouTube video accusing Lear of exposing employees to dangerous levels of TDI. After King continued to voice her concerns, Lear terminated her employment and sued her for defamation and interference with business relations.

After an evidentiary hearing, the court ruled in King’s favor, declaring that her participation in the YouTube video and her comments to the press and OSHA were considered protected activity. In addition, the judge ordered the Lear Corporation to halt any retaliatory action against King, or any other former or current employee.

The court’s ruling in this case asserts that the public deserves a safe and healthy workplace, and those who speak up about perceived dangers should be protected by the law. Moreover, the outcome of this case may help prevent future retaliation against whistleblowers.

Philadelphia Retaliation Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green Protect the Rights of Whistleblowers

If you believe you have a whistleblower claim, contact the experienced Philadelphia whistleblower lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green. Our team of will work tirelessly to protect your rights and reach a favorable financial settlement. With offices conveniently located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, our business lawyers represent clients throughout the Delaware Valley. Call the Law Offices of Sidkoff, Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 to schedule your free consultation or contact us online.

Overview of PA Whistleblower Law

By ,

SPG

The Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law, 43 P.S. § 1421, et seq. holds that no employer may discharge, threaten or otherwise discriminate or retaliate against an employee regarding the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location or privileges of employment because the employee or a person acting on behalf of the employee makes a good faith report or is about to report, verbally or in writing, to the employer or appropriate authority an instance of wrongdoing or waste. “Waste” is defined by the statute as “an employer’s conduct or omissions which result in substantial abuse, misuse, destruction or loss of funds or resources belonging to or derived from Commonwealth or political subdivision sources.” “Wrongdoing” is defined as “a violation which is not of a merely technical or minimal nature of a Federal or State statute or regulation, of a political subdivision ordinance or regulation or of a code of conduct or ethics designed to protect the interest of the public or the employer.”

The PA Whistleblower Law also holds that no employer may discharge, threaten or otherwise discriminate or retaliate against an employee regarding the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location or privileges of employment because the employee is requested by an appropriate authority to participate in an investigation, hearing or inquiry held by an appropriate authority or in a court action.

In determining whether a plaintiff has an actionable case under the PA Whisteblower Law, it is essential to understand that the the terms “employee” and “employer” are limited in scope.  An employee is defined by the law as “a person who performs a service for wages or other remuneration under a contract of hire, written, or oral, express or impled, for a public body.”  A “public body” is defined as:(1) A State officer, agency, department, division, bureau, board, commission, council, authority or other body in the executive branch of State government;(2) A county, city, township, regional governing body, council, school district, special district or municipal corporation, or a board, department, commission, council or agency; or (3) Any other body which is created by Commonwealth or political subdivision authority or which is funded in any amount by or through Commonwealth or political subdivision authority or a member or employee of that body.

Importantly, the statute does not define an “employee” as a person performing services “under a contract of hire … with a public body,” but rather requires only that a person perform services “under a contract of hire … for a public body.”  Therefore, the courts have not interpreted this law to mean that an employee must be in privity of contact with a public body in order to bring a successful claim.  An employer is defined as “[a] person supervising one or more employees, including the employee in question; a superior of that supervisor; or an agent of a public body.” The use of semicolons and the word “or” in the statutory definition means that a person who satisfies any one of the three descriptions is an “employer” for purposes of the Whistleblower Law, even if that person does not satisfy the other descriptions.

A court, in rendering a judgment in an action brought under the Pa Whistleblower Law may order: reinstatement of the employee, the payment of back wages, full reinstatement of fringe benefits and seniority rights, actual damages or any combination of these remedies. A court may also award the complainant all or a portion of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney fees and witness fees, if the court determines that the award is appropriate.  Punitive damages are not defined as an available remedy under the statute, and as such, the courts have not allowed for the recovery of such damages on this claim alone.

A claim made under this law must be brought within a court of competent jurisdiction within 180 days after the occurrence of the alleged violation.

For further information regarding claims and potential claims under the PA Whistleblower Law, please contact Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, with attorneys licensed in Pennsylvania and New Jersey and offices located in Philadelphia.