SIGN UP NOW
Follow the NWC on Twitter!Follow the NWC on Facebook!

California Assemblyman sacrifices his own rights for those of employees

California Assemblyman Anthony PortantinoCalifornia Assemblyman Anthony Portantino (pictured; D-La Cañada Flintridge) has won committee approval for his bill to give employees in the Legislature the same protections afforded to other state workers when they report waste, fraud and abuse. Assembly Bill 1378 will give legislators and their employees protection from retaliation for reporting "improper governmental activity." The bill provides criminal and civil liability for violations. In a recent amendment, the bill limits the right to pursue civil remedies to employees, not legislators themselves. The Sacramento Bee reports that Assemblyman Portantino suffered retaliation himself after we was the lone Democrat to vote against a budget bill.  The Speaker slashed the budget for his office staff. Thus, when Assemblyman Portantino agreed to the amendment to limit civil claims to employees only, he was giving up his own rights for the sake of his employees. The outcome: a committee vote on January 10 with 10 votes in favor and no opposition. Congratulations!

UPDATE:  On January 19, 2012, the Sacramento Bee reported that A.B. 1378 died in the Assembly's Appropriations Committee. The bill did not get the required motion and second required for consideration. The State Auditor said that the bill would cost about $400,000 a year, and would put the Auditor's office in the position of investigating its own "client." It is hard to see how the anti-retaliation provision would interfere with the "independence" of her office. And if the anti-retaliation provision ends up costing the State money, it would probably be a result of liability for actual retaliation -- showing that there is a problem to be addressed. It is not unheard of, though, for a bill for transparency and against corruption and retaliation, gets buried through a procedure that does not require legislators to generate a record of who voted yes and who voted no.  Hopefully, California voters will call on members of the Appropriations Committee to explain why they did not make the required motion and second to advance A.B. 1378.

Westrick wins California appeal under state false claims act

Dr. Aaron Westrick

Dr. Aaron Westrick has won reinstatement of his claims under the California False Claims Act. Last Thursday, May 26, 2011, the California Court of Appeal for the Second District (in Los Angeles) issued its decision in State of California ex rel. Westrick v. Itochu International, Inc., Case No. B223053. On January 26, 2010, the Superior Court of Los Angeles County dismissed Westrick's complaint, holding that his complaint did not plead the allegations of fraud with specificity. The Court of Appeal has now reversed and reinstated Westrick's claims.

Dr. Westrick began his career as a police officer in Michigan. In 1982, he was shot by a fleeing burglar with a .357 Magnum from approximately five feet away. A Second Chance bulletproof vest, made of Kevlar, saved his life. Westrick subsequently earned a Ph.D. in sociology and criminal justice. In 1996, Second Chance hired Westrick as its director of research. On July 5, 2001, Dr. Westrick received a letter from the Japanese Toyobo Company stating that, “the strength of Zylon fiber decreases under high temperature and humidity conditions.” Dr. Westrick recognized that Zylon would degrade and that police officers would die while wearing "bullet-proof" vests made of Zylon. He asked his employer to recall its Zylon vests and have them tested.  In June 2003, Officer Tony Zeppetella of Oceanside, California, was killed when his $766 Zylon vest failed to stop two bullets. That same month, a police officer in Pennsylvania was seriously wounded when a bullet pierced his Zylon vest.

My colleague, Erik Snyder, presented Dr. Westrick's argument to the Court of Appeal. It was Erik's first oral argument. Based on this result, we can expect many more advances for whistleblower rights in Erik's legal career. Congratulations to Erik and Dr. Westrick.

For more information about Dr. Westrick's claims and the problems with Zylon, see this prior blog post. Some excerpts from the Court's new decision follow in the continuation of this blog entry.

From Page 10:

“The [California False Claims] Act is designed to supplement governmental efforts to identify and prosecute fraudulent claims made against state and local governmental entities by authorizing private parties (referred to as qui tams or relators) to bring suit on behalf of the government. (American Contract Services, [supra, 94 Cal.App.4th] at p. 858.)” (Hawthorne, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at p. 1677.) The Act provides a financial incentive for private whistleblowers by entitling a successful qui tam plaintiff to share in a percentage of the recovery in the case. (§ 12652, subd. (g); Rothschild, supra,
83 Cal.App.4th at p. 495.)
The “ultimate purpose of the Act is to protect the public fisc. To that end, the Act must be construed broadly so as to give the widest possible coverage and effect to its prohibitions and remedies.” (Hawthorne, supra, 109 Cal.App.4th at p. 1677.)
The Act authorizes treble damages against one who, inter alia, “[k]nowingly presents or causes to be presented a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval.” (§ 12651, subd. (a)(1).)

Page 15:

We conclude Westrick had pled fraud with the requisite specificity. With the above allegations in the SAC, Westrick had pled fraudulent conduct by defendants with “sufficient particularity such that [defendants are] more than able to ‘defend against the charge[s] and not just deny that [they] ha[ve] done anything wrong.’ ” (Westrick, supra, 685 F.Supp.2d at p. 137; accord Armenta ex rel. City of Burbank v. Mueller Co. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 636, 645 [qui tam pleading adequately “notified[d] defendants of the nature of their liability”].)

Pages 20-21:

Westrick pled sufficient facts to indicate he was an original source. Westrick alleged, inter alia, as director of research at Second Chance, he was the first employee at the company to develop a concern regarding the accelerated degradation of Zylon vests. Upon receiving the July 5, 2001 letter from Toyobo stating “the strength of Zylon fiber decreases under high temperature and humidity conditions,” Westrick determined that older vests sold by Second Chance should be pulled and independently tested in order to determine whether heat and humidity would cause them to degrade.*** The testing revealed Zylon body armor would not perform as required by the five-year warranties under which each vest was sold to police departments across the United States.

***

Westrick disclosed to the California Attorney General all the information he possessed prior to filing suit. Westrick clearly “ ‘had a hand in the public disclosure of allegations that are a part of [his] suit.’ ” (Grayson, supra, 142 Cal.App.4th at p. 755.)
We conclude Westrick sufficiently pled he qualifies as an original source within the meaning of the statute.

 

California Court of Appeals reinstates whistleblower's claim

The California Court of Appeals for the Fourth Appellate District has ruled this week that a lower court erred, for the second time, in dismissing a lawsuit brought by David Ohton, a strength and conditioning coach at San Diego State University (SDSU). In 2003, Ohton had filed an official report detailing NCAA violations, drunkenness and other misconduct by the school's athletic officials. He provided the information to a state auditor. One of those officials got the report and distributed it to the other accused officials. Thereafter, the football coach made hostile statements about him, reduced his duties, and changed his hours to 6 am to 2 pm. The audit led to the ouster of three athletic officials, Sing-On San Diego reports.

University officials concluded that Ohton's complaint was not made in "good faith" because it was "hearsay and fully refuted." The Court made clear that "good faith is properly determined based on whether the complainant believed it was true or had reason to believe it was true at the time it was made."

Thus, hearsay is an adequate basis for a good faith belief, and a refutation does not defeat a "good faith" belief.  It is up to the investigator to determine the facts, and that investigator needs to get all the information, refuted or not, to make that determination. The Court also rejected the idea that a complainant's motives must, "be pure, or untainted by a personal or vindictive agenda." Instead, all that is required is "an honest belief in the truth of the allegations."

The Court faulted the university for failing to pursue criminal charges against the officials who retaliated against Ohton. The university had dismissed the idea on grounds that the retaliation was "minor," but the Court said that the law contained no exception for "minor" retaliation. The Court explains:

The Legislature designated such retaliation as a criminal offense. Therefore, when CSU makes a finding of retaliation, to satisfactorily address the whistleblower complaint, its determination letter must state whether the matter was referred to criminal prosecution, and if not why not. Anything short of this defeats the protections created by
the statute.

This holding is better than what whistleblowers get in federal courts.  Under Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006), adverse actions must be "material" meaning they are sufficient to deter others from engaging in the protected activity. It is good that this California court sees that there really is no "immaterial" retaliation.  Any hostility that makes whistleblowers stand out as disfavored is enough to work against the public interest in getting information to government investigators.

The case is Ohton v. California State University of San Diego, case number D053738 (Jan. 12, 2010), and has been certified for publication. Ohton's lawyer, Dennis Schoville, told Sign-On San Diego:

One man with integrity and a determination to do what is right for the student athletes at San Diego State University has endured criminal retaliation, intimidation and fraudulent conduct committed at the highest levels of the CSU and SDSU administrations. This unanimous decision by three of our brightest, most experienced justices will now allow coach David Ohton to have his day in court. The illegal and fraudulent conduct by university administrators at the highest level will finally be exposed.

The university's lawyer declined to comment.

 

 

Whistleblowers reveal how State Street overcharged California $56 million

Bookmark and Share

A whistleblowers' lawsuit has prompted the State of California to sue State Street Bank for over $200 million.  The suit alleges, and California's Attorney General has confirmed, that State Street cheated California pension funds by overcharging for foreign exchange transactions.  State Street Bank slyly used the trading day’s highest possible exchange rate to charge the pension funds, instead of the agreed upon interbank rate at the time of the trade. To avoid scrutiny, the bank hid the timestamps when reporting to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System.  The Attorney General's investigation confirmed the overcharges, and has intervened in the suit.  The Superior Court for Sacramento has now unsealed that lawsuit. The Attorney General's press release provides a copy of the lawsuit. Hannah Grove, State Street spokeswoman, responded to the Boston Business Journal, “We categorically deny any allegations of wrongdoing and we will defend ourselves against any litigation.”

Intern Tommy Leung contributed to this blog post.  He imagines that State Street probably engaged in the same practice for its other clients, including every other state and local government that used them for their investments.  Tommy and I share an appreciation for the unnamed whistleblowers who brought State Street's overcharges to light, and we wonder if there are others out their who could come forward in any of the other 25 states that have false claims acts and and reward whistleblowers.

California Senate passes bill to extend whistleblower coverage to university employees

Bookmark and Share

Yesterday, the California State Senate passed SB 219, a bill to extend state whistleblower protections to employees of the University of California (UC).  The bill became necessary after the California Supreme Court decided last year that UC employees were not covered by the state's whistleblower protection law as long as the UC administration conducted their own investigation in a timely manner. That case was Miklosy v. Regents of University of California, S139133, 44 Cal. 4th 876; 188 P.3d 629; 80 Cal. Rptr. 3d 690 (July 31, 2008). State Senator Leland Yee sponsored SB 219.  He told the California Chronicle that "This is the classic case of the fox guarding the hen house, and yet another example of UC administrators opposing a commonsense reform. UC executives should not be judge and jury on whether or not they are liable for monetary claims. This was not the intent of California´s whistleblower law." Yee is now urging California's Governor to sign the bill, notwithstanding opposition from the UC administration. The California Chronicle reports that Leo Miklosy and Luciana Messina were scientists at UC´s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. They told their supervisors about equipment problems and poorly trained operators of a project to determine the safety and reliability of the nation´s nuclear weapons stockpile. UC fired Miklosy in February 2003. Messina resigned after overhearing a supervisor say she would also be fired.