The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on Tuesday in Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States, a case that will determine the statute of limitations window for False Claims Act (FCA) cases when the government declines to intervene.

At issue: How should the statute of limitations apply in a qui tam suit in which the United States declines to intervene? Does the three-year limitations period begin to run from the date of the whistleblower’s knowledge of the alleged false claim? Or does it begin on the date of the government official’s knowledge of the alleged false claim?

The case revolves around whistleblower Billy Joe Hunt. In 2013, he filed a qui tam case alleging fraud by his former employer, a war contractor performing munitions clean-up work in Iraq in 2006. The government declined to intervene in Hunt’s case and it was dismissed by a district court. The Eleventh Circuit then allowed the case to go forward ruling that the FCA’s three-year limitations period was triggered by the government’s knowledge of the alleged fraud—not the whistleblower’s knowledge.

Those arguing in support of the Eleventh Circuit ruling include the federal government and a 20-state coalition. An amicus brief filed on the coalition’s behalf by the Indiana attorney general argues that the states have a “strong fiscal interest in ensuring the False Claims Act (FCA) provides adequate time to investigate, prepare, and file FCA claims.”


Continue Reading

Earlier today, the National Whistleblower Center (NWC) joined a friend-of-the-court brief filed with the Supreme Court in support of FBI whistleblower John Parkinson’s petition for certiorari, seeking review of the Federal Circuit’s decision denying veterans’ preference-eligible FBI employees the right to raise whistleblowing as an affirmative defense in an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

The amicus brief, filed on behalf FBI whistleblowers Michael German, Robert Kobus, Jane Turner, and Frederic Whitehurst, as well as the NWC and the Project on Government Oversight, details why the Department of Justice’s procedures for FBI whistleblowers are not an adequate substitute for a veterans’ preference-eligible FBI employee raising a whistleblower claim in an MSPB case.


Continue Reading

Corporate Compliance Programs Crippled and Thousands of Employees Lose Protection

Washington, D.C. | February 21, 2018 — In a groundbreaking anti-whistleblower decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that employees who report violations of securities law to their supervisors or corporate compliance programs, but not to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), are not protected from retaliation under the Dodd-Frank Act (DFA).
Continue Reading

Thousands of Whistleblowers At-Risk of Losing Protection

WASHINGTON, DC – DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, UNITED STATES, November 28, 2017 — The United States Supreme Court will hear oral argument today in a major precedent setting whistleblower case, Digital Realty Trust v. Somers. the first whistleblower case under the Dodd-Frank Act (DFA) to reach the Supreme Court.


Continue Reading

This term the U.S. Supreme Court will decide Digital Realty Trust v. Somers (Digital), one of the most important whistleblower cases to come before the Court in 20-years.   The Chamber of Commerce and its Wall Street allies want to strip all employees who report securities frauds internally to their compliance departments or managers from protection under the Dodd-Frank Act’s (DFA) whistleblower law.
Continue Reading

Corporate whistleblower protection “undermined” if internal complaints not protected.

Washington, D.C. June 26, 2017.  The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari today in the case of Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, Paul.  The Court will decide the issue of whether internal reports to managers are covered under the Dodd-Frank Act’s anti-retaliation law.
Continue Reading