Contractor Who Brought Lawsuit Against Government Faces False Claims Act and Fraud Counterclaims
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims (“COFC”) recently issued an opinion that should give pause to contractors who seek to bring suit against the U.S. government but have not complied with materially relevant government regulations. In LW Construction of Charleston, LLC v. U.S., a government contractor filed suit against the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”), alleging that its contract for a construction project at Fort Jackson National Cemetery was wrongfully terminated. The procurement under which LW Construction of Charleston (“LW”) had . . . Read More
False Claims Act Cases Involving Set-Aside Contracts Held to More Stringent Requirements Following Escobar
Two years have passed since the U.S. Supreme Court issued Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, a key False Claims Act (“FCA”) case that resolved a circuit court split regarding the scope and validity of the implied false certification theory and established that the materiality standard for FCA cases is “demanding.” Since that time, lower courts have been implementing those standards to varying effects. The trend has been favorable for companies facing FCA cases that allege . . . Read More
Doing Business Internationally? Litigation Just Became More Difficult!
Over the last twenty years, the expanding world market has made it easier for domestic companies to conduct business overseas and with foreign corporations. Large and small businesses alike are going global, receiving and providing products, services, and intellectual property internationally. But, along with new international opportunities comes an increase in the complexity of business-to-business transactions. And, when business deals between domestic and foreign businesses go south, the legal implications become more difficult to navigate. Each nation and each state . . . Read More
New Maryland Sexual Harassment Law Creates Important Implications for Employers Both Inside and Outside the State
On May 15, 2018, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan signed into law the Disclosing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace Act of 2018. Described by bill sponsor Craig Zucker (D-Montgomery) as a “national model,” the law, which goes into effect on October 1, 2018, is the first of its kind in the Mid-Atlantic region. And, it has important implications, not only for employers in the State of Maryland, but for out-of-state employers who allow employees to telecommute from, work from time to . . . Read More
When the Law Comes A Callin’: A “How To” For Responding to Subpoenas and Document Requests
Since the last Presidential election campaign began almost three years ago, there has been a significant public focus on sexual harassment, income inequality, crimes against women, public corruption, and the income gap. Sexual harassment claims have skyrocketed in recent months, with some states reporting as much as 400% increases in claim reports. The Department of Labor is enforcing ever-changing compensation rules on service employers. Federal courts are recognizing an expanded reach of workplace non-discrimination laws to the LGBTQ+ community. And, . . . Read More
Lack of Judges Leads to Longer Litigation Times
During the past three years, the number of judicial vacancies in U.S. federal courts has quickly grown. While there has been a flurry of individuals recently nominated to fill the vacant judgeships, many positions remain open. This has led to clogged dockets and increased the length of time it takes cases to be resolved in federal courts. Of the 890 authorized judgeships in federal district courts and courts of appeals, 147—16 percent—are vacant. Many of the judicial positions have been . . . Read More
LGBTQ Discrimination Claims Under Title VII Likely to Increase in 2018 After Second Circuit Ruling
This week, the New York-based United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit became only the second federal appellate court to rule that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of an employee’s sexual orientation. The Second Circuit’s decision in Zarda v. Altitude Express is only binding on employers in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. However, given the court’s influence and the changing tides on the issue, we anticipate the decision . . . Read More
And the False Claims Act Makes Three – 3rd Circuit Applies the More Employer-Friendly Title VII Retaliation and ADEA “But-for” Test in Determining Whistleblowing Retaliation Claim
She was a director of marketing for a drug company who had received a performance improvement plan to address issues related to her relationships with co-workers and supervisors. But she had also raised concerns about the company’s purported “off-label” use of drug products, which is the unapproved use of an approved drug or the use of a drug for purposes other than those that have been approved by the FDA. She eventually resigned and later alleged that she was constructively . . . Read More
Intern or Employee? DOL Adopts Courts’ “Primary Beneficiary” Analysis for Determining When Your Unpaid Intern Will Be Deemed an Employee Under the FLSA
The use of unpaid interns is a common practice across many industries, especially in the D.C. Metro area. And the question recently addressed by the Ninth Circuit is not a new one: under what set of circumstances does an unpaid intern in the private sector cross the line and become an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and thus become entitled to compensation? Since 2010, the Department of Labor (“DOL”), when grappling with this question, has applied a . . . Read More
D.C. Circuit Weighs in on Employee’s Right to Union Representation at Disciplinary Meetings
In a recent ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has shed light on the scope of an employee’s right to union representation at an investigatory interview conducted by the employer. The prior case of NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251, 256 (1975) confirmed that an employee must be allowed to bring a union representative to any investigatory interview that he or she is required to attend, if the employee reasonably believes that the interview could . . . Read More