Tuesday, August 10th, 2010...8:12 am
DAlaska: Discovery in FCA Retaliation Case
U S District Judge Ralph Beistline has ordered an employer to produce contract documents that a former employer claims will help show that he was fired in retaliation for exposing an inflated subcontract on a government job.
Paul Blakeslee claims that Shaw Infrastructure, Inc. fired him because he alerted Shaw’s CEO that his supervisor had leased equipment to Shaw at an inflated price. Blakeslee alleges that his firing violated the anti-retaliation provision of the federal False Claims Act.
When Blakeslee requested the subcontract documents, Shaw resisted, arguing that the documents might be relevant if Blakeslee had alleged FCA fraud, but were not when Blakeslee alleged FCA retaliation and Shaw had already conceded it knew of Blakeslee’s complaint before it fired him. Judge Beistline rejected the distinction proposed by Shaw:
It should be obvious that a company with real misconduct to hide would have more motive to terminate a whistle-blowing employee than would a company with clean hands. If Blakeslee had informed a government agency about the alleged fraud and then been terminated, his retaliation claim would not depend so heavily on proving that Shaw intendecd to conceal fraud. The “cat” would already have been “out of the bag,” so to speak. Instead, Blakeslee informed Shaw’s CEO about the alleged misconduct. Thus, Blakeslee can plausibly prove retaliation by showing that Shaw wanted to cover up or at least ignore the fraud. . . . [T]he fact that a plaintiff alleging retaliation need not show actual fraud does not mean that proof of such fraud is irrelevant to his claim. In this case, proof of Shaw’s knowledge of fraud and failure to remedy such fraud would tend to prove an improper motive in terminating Blakeslee’s employment. Under the broad discovery principles set forth in Rule 26, the documents are generally discoverable.
Blakeslee v. Shaw Infrastructure, Inc., 2010 WL 2985812 (D.Alaska July 27, 2010)
Howard Trickey and Matt Singer of Jermain Dunnagan & Owens represent the plaintiff. Doug Parker of Littler Mendelson represents Shaw. All practice in Anchorage.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.