Skip to content
On April 19th I visited the Supreme Court to listen to oral arguments in Universal Health Services v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar, arising under the whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act.  However, I was shocked at what I heard.

The hospital that was sued in this case actually asked the Justices to believe that: (1) it is not fraud for a hospital to bill Medicaid or other government insurance programs for a doctor’s services when it knows that a doctor did not perform any services; and (2) that companies and hospitals that are government contractors should be permitted “to pick and choose which regulations they comply with.”
Continue Reading Government Contractors Ask Supreme Court for False Claims Act Loophole So They Can “Pick and Choose” What Regulations to Follow

The National Whistleblower Center recently filed an Amicus (friend of the court) brief in the case Universal Health Services v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar. The legal issue behind the case concerns the False Claims Act, America’s premier whistleblower law and its best defense against government contracting fraud. The question at hand asks whether a contractor can only be held liable for defrauding the government and the taxpayers if they violate the express terms of their contract, or if reasonable interpretations of the requirements can serve as the basis for enforcing against fraud as well.
Continue Reading National Whistleblower Center presents original documents showing the intent of the False Claims Act

Washington, D.C.  January 21, 2015.  Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that former Air Marshall Robert MacLean was not “specifically prohibited by law” from disclosing information to the press about TSA’s plan to cutback on the number of air marshals during a terrorist alert.  Such a disclosure was against agency regulations.

The Whistleblower Protection Act prohibits individuals in positions of authority from taking a “personnel action” against a government employee when the employee makes a disclosure, which the employee reasonable believes to evidence a “substantial and specific danger to public health and safety, if such disclosure is not specifically prohibited by law.”    
Continue Reading TSA Whistleblower Wins At Supreme Court

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean.  This case arises under the Whistleblower Protection Act. The Whistleblower Protection Act prohibits individuals in positions of authority from taking a “personnel action” against a government employee when the employee makes a disclosure, which the employee reasonable believes to evidence a “substantial and specific danger to public health and safety, if such disclosure is not specifically prohibited by law.”  The issue before the Court is when a federal statute bars whistleblower from making disclosures that are “specifically prohibited by law,” does this bar also apply to disclosures prohibited by agency regulations?
Continue Reading Supreme Court Hears Arguments in TSA Whistleblower Case

SOX whistleblower protection covers mutual fund industry

Washington, D.C. March 4, 2014. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in Lawson v. FMR, LLC, that contractors and subcontractors of publicly traded companies are fully protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act for corporate whistleblowers.

Significantly, in today’s decision the Supreme Court explicitly held that investment advisors and

This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order inviting the Solicitor General of the United States to file a brief “expressing the views of the United States” in Lawson v. FMR.  This is a good sign that the Supreme Court is interested in the case, and could accept the case if the Solicitor

Whistleblowers beware: this week the Supreme Court dealt a death blow to the Privacy Act. David Colapinto, NWC General Counsel and Privacy Act expert, appeared on NPR to talk about the ruling and it’s devastating effects for whistleblowers. Full story here

Congress originally passed the historic Privacy Act after the Nixon administration illegally broke into

Privacy Act Protections for Whistleblowers At Risk

On Tuesday, October 4, 2011, the National Whistleblower Center filed a friend of the court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the plaintiff in a Privacy Act case, Federal Aviation Administration v. Cooper, No. 10-1024. The Supreme Court is currently reviewing whether the Privacy Act permits the recovery of damages for non-pecuniary harm, such as mental and emotional injuries, under the Act’s “actual damages” provision. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(4)(A).

In the lower court, the Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiff was entitled to seek damages for emotional distress. The government, however, has appealed to the Supreme Court to seek a reversal claiming that the term “actual damages” should be narrowly construed to limit Privacy Act damages suits to recovery of out of pocket losses or economic harm caused by the government’s willful or intentional violation of the Act.

Whistleblowers who report wrongdoing by Federal agencies and government officials frequently are subject to violations of privacy. It cannot be over-stated how vital avenues of legal redress, including rights available under the Privacy Act, are to those courageous employee-whistleblowers, both actual and potential, who put the public good before their own careers and who face violations of their privacy as a result of taking unpopular positions. Protecting the privacy of these individuals is an essential component in encouraging employees to reveal severe abuses of power and dangerous industrial practices. Even under the best of circumstances, whistleblowers run enormous risks and suffer retaliation for reporting wrongdoing. If the Privacy Act does not provide remedies for actual non-pecuniary harms (such as for emotional distress and humiliation), then whistleblowers face even greater disincentives to expose misconduct or violations of law.Continue Reading NWC Urges Supreme Court Not to Weaken the Privacy Act