Whistleblower Lawyer Blog

Two days ago on 1/28/08 President Bush signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act for the fiscal year 2008. This legislation includes a provision protecting defense contractor employees who blow the whistle on contracting fraud. 10 U.S.C. § 2409 has specifically been amended via Section 846 to protect employees for disclosing “information that the employee reasonably believes is evidence of gross mismanagement of a Department of Defense contract or grant, a gross waste of Department of Defense funds, a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or a violation of law related to a Department of Defense contract (including the competition for or negotiation of a contract) or grant.” Obviously, this new whistleblower protection encourages defense contractor employees to come forward if they have knowledge of such misconduct.

The new whistleblower law is intended to protect all defense contract employees to come forward in good faith so that they need not fear reprisal if they do so. If the employee who blows the whistle on contractor fraud is retaliated against, the affected employee may file a complaint with the Inspector General of the Agency and unless the complaint is determined to be frivolous, the Inspector General will conduct an investigation. If the employee is not satisfied with the Inspector General’s handling of the complaint, the employee may bring an action in federal court and is entitled to a jury trial. If the complainant is retaliated against for bringing legitimate good faith complaints of government contract fraud out in the open, then his or her remedies would include reinstatement, back pay, compensatory damages, attorneys fees and costs.

This new law is a giant step forward when it comes to protecting whistleblowers who are brave enough to come forward and expose defense contractor misconduct. By protecting such employees from retaliation, the law is intended to encourage their coming forward to expose waste, fraud and mismanagement. If the employee who does come forward is retaliated against as a result of blowing the whistle, this law is intended to make sure that they will be fully compensated for any damages sustained as a result of such retaliation including reinstatement of the job taken from them or reimbursement for wages and benefits lost as a result of any retaliation. As stated, the employee is also entitled to have his or her attorneys fees and costs paid should they be retaliated against for blowing the whistle.

This is an excellent piece of legislation which is good for the country and hopefully will help to reduce defense contractor fraud and abuse.

While there are many specific retaliation provisions unique to claims filed under the False Claims Act, with the Equal Opportunity Commission and/or arising out of Sarbanes-Oxley provisions, all of which protect informant employees from being retaliated against by their employer, a little known fact is that there is a general statute (42 U.S.C. § 1985) which makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to “deter” a witness from testifying in Federal Court. This statute also makes it unlawful to “retaliate” against a witness for having so testified. The “deterrence” provision makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to deter by force, intimidation or threat, any witness in any court in the United States from testifying to any matter pending therein freely, fully and truthfully. The “retaliation” provision makes it unlawful to injure a witness on account of his having testified in a court in the United States. Conspiracy to retaliate consists of two or more people acting in concert to retaliate against a witness for having testified in a judicial proceeding and injury as a result of the conspiracy, and an nexus between the act of testifying and the conspiracy.
The typical case where this statute might apply is one where a company employee testifies against the employer in a federal proceeding and then is terminated as a result of the testimony. Even a threat to take retaliatory actions against a witness should they provide truthful testimony is actionable under this statute. Thus, if a company employee is testifying before a federal body and is “advised, counseled or warned” that should they testify unfavorably to the company they may be subject to reprisal, this would be an actionable case under this statute.

In the United States Supreme Court of Haddle v. Garrison, 525 U.S. 121, 119 S. Ct. 489, 148 L. Ed. 2d 502 (1998), (a case arising in Georgia which involved this firm) the Supreme Court held that third party interference even with an “at will” employment relationship states a claim for relief under § 1985. The Court reasoned that because “the gist of the wrong at which § 1985 is directed is not deprivation of property, but intimidation or retaliation against witnesses in federal court proceedings,” the loss of at will employment can injure a plaintiff for purposes of the statute. Thus, even in an “at will” state such as Georgia, if an employee is intimidated by an employer in such a way as to interfere with their ability to provide testimony against the employer in a federal court context, then such a case is actionable notwithstanding the restrictions of a state “at will” employment doctrine.

In addition to recovering compensatory damages in a case where an employer is seeking to prevent an employee from testifying against its interest in a federal proceeding, the whistleblower employee may also obtain attorneys fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The decision to award attorneys fees is left to the sound discretion of the Trial Court but generally should be awarded to a prevailing plaintiff. Also, plaintiffs who establish a valid claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 are presumptively entitled to an award of punitive damages as well. Thus, in the context of a case where an employer is seeking to intimidate an employee from testifying against its corporate interest, in a federal proceeding, the whistleblower employee does have statutory rights to combat either the deterrence or retaliation for doing the right thing.