Category: Litigation

Given Deadlines Set by Sixth Circuit, ETS Likely Stayed Until At Least December 10, 2021

Earlier this month, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) issued its “COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing; Emergency Temporary Standard” (the “ETS”) requiring employers of 100 or more employees to implement policies requiring employee vaccination or enhanced safety measures for unvaccinated employees (including wearing face coverings and weekly COVID-19 testing). Our alert on the ETS is here. The ETS was subject to over 30 petitions for review in the federal circuit courts and was quickly stayed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Although the petitions for review were consolidated before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Fifth Circuit’s stay remains in place. While OSHA has publically stated that it will comply with the stay, its position has been – and continues to be – that employers should prepare to comply with the ETS and that OSHA will succeed in litigation challenging the ETS. Yesterday, OSHA filed an emergency motion to immediately lift the stay.

With the stay in place, covered employers have been in the difficult position of trying to determine how much preparation to do to comply with the ETS’s requirements, many of which are scheduled to be effective on December 6, 2021. The question has been whether the stay will continue beyond the initial deadlines and, if not, whether deadlines will be extended to account for the period during which the ETS was stayed.

The deadlines set out in the Sixth Circuit’s Scheduling Order, which is available here, provide some insight into the timing of the requirements of the ETS.  The Scheduling Order sets the following briefing deadlines:

  • Tuesday, November 30, 2021 – motions to join OSHA’s emergency motion or to modify, revoke, or extend the stay.
  • Tuesday, December 7, 2021 – responses to motions regarding the stay.
  • Friday, December 10, 2021 – replies to responsive motions.

Given these deadlines, it is likely that the ETS will continue to be stayed until at least December 10th (past the December 6, 2021 deadline) while the Sixth Circuit considers briefing.  However, it is possible that, before December 10th, the Sixth Circuit lifts the stay. If the stay is lifted, the ETS requirements could become effective on the date of the court’s order or on a later date set by the Sixth Circuit.

While the briefing schedule does not provide definitive answers to employers on the potential deadlines for ETS compliance, it suggests that the ETS’s December 6, 2021, deadlines may be extended for at least a few days while the Sixth Circuit considers briefing.

© 2021 Bracewell LLP
For more on OSHA COVID-19 updates, visit the NLR Coronavirus News section.

Counsel Fee Award When Contesting A Will

In general, the party tasked with defending a decedent’s Will during a Will contest, which is typically the executor, is entitled to the reimbursement of counsel fees that they incur in defending the Will on behalf of the Estate. At times, however, a party who has filed an action to contest a Last Will and Testament may also be entitled to an award of counsel fees provided there was a reasonable and legitimate basis to contest the decedent’s Last Will and Testament. In a recent appellate division case, the court affirmed an award of counsel fees to the contestant of a decedent’s Will for these very reasons.

In this matter, the defendant executor had been awarded counsel fees by the court, as the defendant was responsible for defending the decedent’s Last Will and Testament against the challenges levied by the plaintiff. In addition, the trial court also awarded counsel fees to the plaintiff, as it found that plaintiff’s challenge to the decedent’s Will was made in good faith and was reasonable. Moreover, the court found that plaintiff’s fees for which it sought reimbursement were fair and reasonable. In response, the defendant argued that the award of counsel fees was contrary to the applicable New Jersey court rules, and therefore, objected to the award. The appellate division reviewed the applicable rule of professional conduct, RPC 1.5(a), and concluded that the plaintiff had reasonable cause to contest the validity of the decedent’s Will, and moreover, that the fees the plaintiff sought were reasonable. As such, the appellate division concluded that the trial court correctly awarded counsel fees to the contestant of the decedent’s Will.

This appellate division decision reaffirmed a well-accepted standard as to an award of counsel fees in the context of probate litigation. When you are either taxed with defending a Last Will and Testament or intending to contest a Last Will and Testament, this factor should be considered when deciding whether settlement makes sense. Since there is no guarantee to either side that the counsel fees will be awarded, it is an issue that should be considered in the context of any settlement discussions before trial.

COPYRIGHT © 2021, STARK & STARK
Article by Paul W. Norris with Stark & Stark.
For more articles on estates and trusts, visit the NLR Family, Estates & Trusts section.

CosmoKey Gets a Duo-Over – Federal Circuit Panel Reverses Finding of Ineligibility

In CosmoKey Solutions GMBH & Co. KG v. Duo Security LLC, No. 2020-2043 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 4, 2021), the Federal Circuit reversed a finding of ineligibility for claims directed to a computer authentication method.

CosmoKey’s patent is directed to an authentication method that requires a user to activate a timed authentication function on a mobile device to log into a computer. Duo Security moved for judgment on the pleadings. The district court found the claims ineligible under § 101, specifically finding that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of “authentication” at step one of Alice, and that the remaining elements were generic computer functionality at step two.

The Federal Circuit reversed. The majority first stated it was “not convinced” the claims were broadly “directed to” authentication, instead noting the focus of the claims and the specification on the activation of a timed authentication function. Nonetheless, according to the majority, answering this question at step one was “unnecessary” because the claims were eligible at step two for reciting a specific improvement to authentication that “increases security, prevents unauthorized access by a third party, is easily implemented, and can advantageously be carried out with mobile devices of low complexity.”

Judge Reyna concurred in the judgment, but did so by resolving the inquiry at step one, finding the claims directed to a “specific improvement to authentication.” He viewed the majority’s decision to skip step one and resolve the inquiry at step two as “turn[ing] the Alice inquiry on its head.” He noted that, without the step one analysis, it is difficult to determine whether “additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application” of an abstract idea.

© 2021 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
For more patent litigation, visit the NLR Intellectual Property Law section.

More Circuits Added to the OSHA ETS Lottery

Lawsuits challenging the COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing (the “ETS”) issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) were filed in three additional U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals on Wednesday, November 10, 2021. Labor unions filed lawsuits in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits. As a result, there are now ETS-related lawsuits pending in the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts.

According to federal rules, the legal challenges to the OSHA ETS will be consolidated and heard by a single U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation will conduct a lottery, expected on November 16, to select which U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear the consolidated litigation. The court to hear the litigation will be drawn “from a drum containing an entry for each circuit wherein a constituent petition for review is pending.” Each court only gets one entry, despite the number of petitions pending before each court. Until the Judicial Panel selects the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to hear the litigation via the lottery, all the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals can proceed with rulings, as the Fifth Circuit did this past weekend.

The labor unions’ move may be a move reflective of an intent by some to increase the odds that the OSHA ETS is upheld. The First, Second, and Fourth circuits all have a majority of Democratic-appointed judges. But it is difficult to predict the future of the OSHA ETS as the panel of judges to hear the case is also selected randomly.

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California
For more updates on COVID-19, visit the NLR Coronavirus News section.

Ninth Circuit Rejects Ex-Tinder Employee’s Attempt to Avoid Arbitration

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that an ex-Tinder employee must arbitrate her claims against her former employer and cannot pursue her claims in court, even though her claims arose before she executed an arbitration agreement. In reaching this decision, the Ninth Circuit not only enforced the broad language of the parties’ arbitration agreement, but also held that a unilateral modification clause (granting the employer the right to make changes to the agreement) does not, in and of itself, render an arbitration agreement unenforceable. Elizabeth Sanfilippo v. Match Group LLC et al., Case No. 20-55819, 2021 U.S. App. Lexis 29263 (9th Cir. Sept. 28, 2021).

In this case, the chronology of events is important to understanding how this lawsuit arose.  In September 2016, Tinder hired the plaintiff as a brand manager.  According to the plaintiff, in mid-2017 and January 2018, she complained to human resources about sexual harassment by her coworkers and supervisors. During that same time period, in July 2017, Tinder was acquired by Match Group, Inc. After acquiring Tinder, Match Group sent its employees a mandatory arbitration agreement. The plaintiff signed the agreement and continued to work for Match Group until Match Group discharged her in March 2018. The plaintiff sued in California state court for sexual harassment and retaliation.  The case was removed to federal court at which point Match Group successfully moved to compel arbitration. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the arbitration agreement (1) is unenforceable, and (2) does not cover her claims, which predated the agreement.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held the arbitration agreement was enforceable and applicable to the plaintiff’s sexual harassment allegations, even though the plaintiff did not sign the agreement until after her claims arose. In ruling for Match Group, the court highlighted the broad nature of the arbitration agreement’s language that required arbitration for “all claims and controversies arising from or in connection with [the plaintiff’s] application with, employment with, or termination from the Company.” In enforcing the agreement, the court noted that the agreement’s reference to “all claims and controversies” arising out of the plaintiff’s employment necessarily included her claims that predated the arbitration agreement.

Moreover, the Ninth Circuit was not swayed by the fact that the arbitration agreement included a provision that allowed Match Group to modify the terms of the agreement unilaterally. While the court recognized that such a provision could be substantively unconscionable, it explicitly discussed how Match Group had not actually modified the agreement but was rather seeking to enforce the agreement as written. But the court went even further in enforcing the agreement. In addition to upholding the agreement, the Ninth Circuit determined that even if it assumed that a provision permitting unilateral modifications by the employer is substantively unconscionable, such a provision alone does not render the entire agreement unenforceable. Therefore, even taking the plaintiff’s argument as true, the agreement, as a whole, was still enforceable.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision is encouraging for employers seeking to enforce their arbitration agreements for a few reasons. First, the court made clear that a unilateral modification clause will not, in of itself, render the agreement unenforceable. Second, the court  enforced the broad language in the employer’s arbitration agreement and compelled arbitration of claims that pre-date the execution of the agreement.

Co-authored by Spencer Ladd.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2021

Litigation Minute: Obtaining Information After the Close of Discovery

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW IN A MINUTE OR LESS

Imagine this scenario: you just learned that the opposing party is using the same witness or expert from your case in some related litigation. You have good reason to suspect that the testimony in that other case directly relates to the very facts in your case. Because of the prior commercial relationships between the parties, the witness or expert likely made some admissions that would be very helpful to your case. But the discovery cutoff in your case has long past, and you are preparing for trial. What do you do?

Discovery may close, but litigation goes on. Sometimes you become aware of information that is relevant to your case after the close of discovery. This could be information that did not previously exist or information that you only learned about after the discovery deadline had passed. In a minute or less, here are some considerations you should keep in mind for obtaining information after the close of discovery.

Check your local rules

First and foremost, always consult your local rules, as jurisdictions may vary in their standards for late discovery and whether a local duty to supplement is imposed. For example, the Northern District of Illinois temporarily implemented a Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Program, which required parties to respond to a series of standard discovery requests before partaking in any other discovery. Witness statements are one of the specific categories of documents that parties must disclose. Thus, some jurisdictions may provide additional mechanisms and authority to rely upon in order to obtain the sought transcripts.

Duty to supplement

If the information you are seeking is responsive to timely-served requests, seek opposing counsel’s compliance under the duty to supplement imposed by Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Under Rule 26(e), parties that have made prior disclosures or responded to a discovery request with a disclosure or response are generally under a duty to supplement or correct the provided information. The duty to supplement extends to expert witnesses whose report must be disclosed pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(B). An expert’s duty to supplement includes information within the report, as well as information provided during the expert’s deposition.

The duty to supplement survives past the discovery cutoff. It is important to know that the duty to supplement may extend far past the deadline to complete discovery. Even if the discovery deadline has come and gone, parties must nonetheless supplement and/or correct prior disclosures or responses in a timely manner upon learning that the prior disclosure was incomplete or incorrect in some material respect and the additional and/or corrective information has not been made known to the other party. Note some courts and/or scheduling orders set a separate supplemental discovery deadline.

Meet and confer

Once you have identified previous discovery requests that would cover this material, you can approach opposing counsel. An effort to obtain the information without the court’s action is a prerequisite to a Motion to Compel under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and most local rules. Under Rule 37(a)(1), parties cannot move for an order compelling discovery until the movant has in good faith conferred, or attempted to confer, with the party resisting discovery and included a certification of those efforts. Additionally, you can move for appropriate sanctions if the resisting party fails to make a disclosure required by Rule 26(a).

Good cause requirement for extending discovery

If the information you seek is not responsive to timely-served requests, you may want to move to extend the discovery deadline to serve additional requests. To do so, you must demonstrate “good cause” warranting the extension. Courts generally focus their inquiry on the movant’s diligence and/or excusable neglect. Some courts find excusable neglect by balancing the danger of prejudice to the opposing party, the potential impact of the delay on the proceedings, the movant’s reason for the delay, and whether the movant acted in good faith. So, it will be important to show that the information is critical to your case and explain why it was not requested earlier.

Can you serve requests for admission?

In some jurisdictions, requests for admission are not considered discovery devices that are subject to the fact discovery cutoff. If you are in one of these jurisdictions, consider whether the information you seek can be established by use of this mechanism.

The key takeaways here are: (1) draft your initial discovery requests in a way that is broad enough to capture later developments, like testimony; (2) know your local rules; and (3) act quickly and decisively to make sure your client is not prejudiced.

This article was written by Jeffrey T. Kucera, Carly S. Everhardt and Claudia Velasquez of K&L Gates law firm. For more articles about discovery, please visit here.

It’s Time to Clarify When Cross-Appeals Are Necessary

Much has been said on this blog about when one should cross-appeal, given the Law Court’s jurisprudence on the topic.  I most recently addressed the issue here.  As I noted then, there is some tension between the text of the Maine Rules of Appellate Procedure, which provides that “[i]f the appellee seeks any change in the judgment that is on appeal, the appellee must file a cross-appeal to preserve that issue,” M.R. App. P. 2C(a)(1), and the Court’s most recent rulings (in Jones v. Secretary of State and Reed v. Secretary of State) regarding the necessity of cross-appealing to preserve an alternative argument for affirmance.  Because of the importance of this issue, my colleague Nolan Reichl and I recently published an article in the Maine Bar Journal (at page 10) addressing the topic.

As we wrote there,

Recent decisions by the Law Court have raised questions concerning whether a litigant must file a notice of cross-appeal merely to argue a judgment should be affirmed based on grounds alternative to those adopted by the trial court. Maine Rule of Appellate Procedure 2C, Law Court precedent, and analogous federal practice all confirm that an appellee urging affirmance of a judgment on alternative grounds need not file a notice of cross-appeal so long as that litigant does not seek a substantive alteration in the terms of the judgment.

We also note that,

as the law now stands, it is less than clear what the cross-appeal rule is. Rule 2C and [the Law Court’s decision in Argereow v. Weisberg] say one thing, while Reed and Jones say another.

Accordingly, we argue that the cross-appeal rule applied in Reed and Jones “should be overruled expressly” and that the “Law Court should take the next available opportunity to clarify its cross-appeal jurisprudence and reaffirm the plain terms of Rule 2C.”

Agree or disagree, we hope that the article furthers the discussion on this important topic.

©2021 Pierce Atwood LLP. All rights reserved.
For more articles like this, visit the NLR Litigation section.

SEC Awards $40M to Two Whistleblowers: Lessons for Prospective SEC Whistleblowers

On October 14, 2021, the SEC announced that it awarded $40M to two whistleblowers.  According to the order, both whistleblowers provided original information to the SEC that led to a successful enforcement action and provided extensive assistance during the SEC’s investigation.  The first whistleblower received an ward of approximately $32 million and the second received an award of approximately $8 million.  Why did one whistleblower receive an award that is four times greater than the award provided to the second whistleblower? And what can prospective whistleblowers learn from this award determination?

Although the SEC’s order is appropriately sparse (to protect the confidentiality of whistleblowers), it offers some important reasons for the disparity in the two awards:

  • The first whistleblower reported promptly and provided a tip that caused the SEC to open an investigation.
  • The second whistleblower provided important new information during the course of the investigation and was a valuable first-hand witness, but waited several years to report to the SEC. Due to the unreasonable delay in reporting the violations, the SEC reduced the second whistleblowers’ award percentage.
  • Both whistleblowers provided extensive, ongoing cooperation that helped the SEC to stop the wrongdoing, but the first whistleblower provided the information that enabled the SEC to devise an investigative plan and craft its initial document requests. The first whistleblower also “made persistent efforts to remedy the issues, while suffering hardships.”

Lessons for Prospective SEC Whistleblowers

Early Bird Gets the Worm

To be eligible for an award, a whistleblower must first submit “original information.” Original information can be derived from independent knowledge (facts known to the whistleblower that are not derived from publicly available sources) or independent analysis (evaluation of information that may be publicly available but which reveals information that is not generally known).  A prospective whistleblower who delays reporting a violation risks becoming ineligible for an award (another whistleblower may come forward first).

And an unreasonable delay in reporting a violation may cause the SEC to reduce an award.  In making this determination, the SEC considers:

  • whether the whistleblower failed to take reasonable steps to report the violation or prevent it from occurring or continuing;
  • whether the whistleblower was aware of the violation but reported to the SEC only after learning of an investigation into the misconduct;
  • whether the violations identified by the whistleblower were continuing during the period of delay;
  • whether investors were being harmed during that time; and
  • whether the whistleblower might profit from the delay by ultimately obtaining a larger award because the failure to report permitted the misconduct to continue, resulting in larger monetary sanctions.

According to OWB Guidance for Whistleblower Award Determinations, one or more of these circumstances, in the absence of significant mitigating factors, would likely cause the SEC to recommend a substantially lower award amount.

Common reasons that weigh against determining that a delay was unreasonable include:

  • the whistleblower engaging for a reasonable period of time in an internal reporting process;
  • the delay being reasonably attributable to an illness or other personal or family circumstance; and
  • the whistleblower spending a reasonable amount of time attempting to ascertain relevant facts or obtain an attorney in order to remain anonymous.

The significant disparity between the two awards announced on October 14th underscores why whistleblowers should report promptly.

A Whistleblower Can Qualify for an Award for Assisting with an Open investigation

Even though the second whistleblower delayed a few years reporting the violation to the SEC and came forward when the SEC already commenced an investigation, the whistleblower received an award for providing information and documents, participating in staff interviews, and providing the staff a more complete picture of how events from an earlier period impacted the company’s practices.  That result underscores how the SEC’s whistleblower rules permit the SEC to pay awards to whistleblowers that provide information in an existing investigation.  In other words, the fact that the SEC has already commenced an investigation should not cause a prospective whistleblower to forego providing a tip to the SEC.

A whistleblower can qualify for an award if their tip “significantly contributes” to the success of an SEC enforcement action, including where the information causes staff to (i) commence an examination, (ii) open or reopen an investigation, or (iii) inquire into different conduct as part of a current SEC examination or investigation, and the SEC brings a successful judicial or administrative action based in whole or in part on conduct that was the subject of the individual’s original information.

In determining whether an individual’s information significantly contributed to an enforcement action, the SEC considers factors such as whether the information allowed the SEC to bring the action in significantly less time or with significantly fewer resources, additional successful claims, or successful claims against additional individuals or entities.

Whistleblowers are Welcome at the SEC

The SEC issued this $40M award shortly after announcing that it reached a milestone of paying $1B in awards to whistleblowers under the Dodd-Frank SEC whistleblower program.  As of October 14, 2021, the SEC has awarded approximately $1.1B to 218 individuals.

Since assuming the position of SEC Chair earlier this year, Gary Gensler has made several public statements and taken specific actions that suggest that he is a strong proponent of the SEC whistleblower program and is determined to utilize the program to detect, investigate, and prosecute violations of the securities laws.  When the SEC announced that it paid $1B in awards, Chair Gensler stated, “The assistance that whistleblowers provide is crucial to the SEC’s ability to enforce the rules of the road for our capital markets.”

And in remarks for the National Whistleblower Day Celebration, Chair Gensler stated:

The tips, complaints, and referrals that whistleblowers provide are crucial to the Securities and Exchange Commission as we enforce the rules of the road for our capital markets . . . the whistleblower program helps us to be better cops on the beat, execute our mission, and protect investors from misconduct . . . Investors in our capital markets have benefited from the critical information provided by whistleblowers. . . . We must ensure that whistleblowers are empowered to come forward when they see misbehavior; that they are appropriately compensated according to the framework established by Congress; and that those who report wrongdoing are protected from retaliation.

Chair Gensler has also taken action to carry out his commitment to encouraging whistleblowers to come forward.  On August 2, 2021, Chair Gensler suspended the implementation of two recent amendments to the SEC whistleblower rules because these amendments could discourage whistleblowers from coming forward. He directed the staff to prepare for the Commission’s consideration potential revisions to these two rules.

© 2021 Zuckerman Law
For more on SEC and whistleblowing, visit the NLR financial Securities & Banking section.

Protections for Whistleblowers Who Share Company Documents

Frances Haugen, a former product manager at Facebook, recently revealed her identity as the whistleblower who reported Facebook to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and provided internal Facebook documents to Congress and to the press. Questions have arisen about what kinds of protections she and other whistleblowers have when it comes to sharing documents with government regulators, Congress, and news outlets. Whistleblowers have a number of protections that allow them to disclose documents, even those that may be deemed confidential; however, the availability of these protections depends on the nature of the documents, the scope of what the whistleblower takes from the company, and to whom she provides these documents.

Documents Related to Securities Violations

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act) and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) provide anti-retaliation protections for whistleblowers who share information with specific recipients to report possible securities violations. The SOX anti-retaliation provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, protects employees who report fraud or securities violations to (1) federal regulatory or law enforcement agencies, like the SEC; (2) to a person in the company with supervisory authority over the employee; or (3) to any Congressperson or any committee of Congress. The Dodd-Frank Act’s anti-retaliation provision, 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6(h)(1)(A), prohibits retaliation by an employer against an employee who provides information to the SEC; initiates, testifies in, or assists any SEC action or investigation; or, makes required or protected disclosures regarding securities violations. Under both laws, an employer is prohibited from discharging, demoting, threatening, harassing, or in any way discriminating against whistleblowers as it relates to their employment.

If their employer retaliates against them, whistleblowers may pursue different avenues of relief. Under SOX, whistleblowers may file a complaint with the Secretary of Labor and seek “all relief necessary to make the employee whole,” including reinstatement, back pay, and compensation for any special damages. 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(c). If dissatisfied with the outcome, the whistleblower can seek further administrative and judicial review, but first must exhaust these administrative remedies. 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(b)(2)(A). Under Section 922 of the Dodd-Frank Act, whistleblowers have a private right of action. If an employer violates this provision, the whistleblower may sue directly in federal court. If the whistleblower is successful, she would be entitled to reinstatement, two times the amount of back pay otherwise owed to her, and compensation for litigation costs and attorneys’ fees.

Relevant SEC regulations, such as Commission Rule 21F-17, 17 C.F.R. § 240.21f-17, also protect whistleblowers. This regulation prohibits employers from impeding communications with the SEC about possible securities violations, including by enforcing or threatening to enforce confidentiality agreements. This rule permits an individual to share documents, even those that the company may consider to be confidential, with the Commission in order to report possible securities violations. In Ms. Haugen’s case, according to the Wall Street Journal, Facebook has a confidentiality agreement in place that generally prohibits her from sharing proprietary information, but it allows her to communicate with regulators, Congress, and law enforcement. Other companies may have confidentiality agreements that are written more broadly, which might violate SEC Rule 21F-17.

Only the SEC can enforce this Rule 21F-17, and it has enforced it against companies with confidentiality agreements that impede an employee’s communications with the SEC. In one instance, a company had a provision in its severance agreement that required the departing employee to notify the company about any third-party disclosures. The SEC determined that the agreement violated Rule 21F-17 because it did not exempt communications with the Commission, and therefore created an impediment to a potential whistleblower’s communications with the SEC. The SEC Division of Examinations has also affirmatively reviewed companies’ documents, including compliance manuals, employment agreements, and severance agreements, to ensure that these polices are consistent with the protections afforded to whistleblowers under Rule 21F-17. Therefore, even where there are contractual prohibitions against sharing information with third parties, whistleblowers are nonetheless protected when they share internal documents with the Commission to report possible securities violations.

In addition to anti-retaliation protections, the Dodd-Frank Act created the SEC Whistleblower Program, which incentivizes individuals to come forward with information about possible securities violations. The Program offers monetary awards to whistleblowers who provide the SEC with original information leading to an enforcement action that results in over $1 million in monetary sanctions. A whistleblower’s right to seek an award under the Program cannot be waived by contract, such as a severance agreement, as the Commission concluded in a past order, because the SEC views such a prohibition as an impediment to the whistleblower’s communications with the Commission and therefore a violation of Rule 21F-17.

Documents Related to Fraud on the Government

Government contractors working in the tech industry may also be protected by the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. § 3729, et seq., if they report fraud on the government. The FCA prohibits the intentional presentation of false claims to the government for payment, which can include providing false information in connection with any claim for payment, and it allows private citizens to file a lawsuit on behalf of the government, known as a qui tam action. The FCA also includes an anti-retaliation provision, which prohibits retaliation against individuals who undertake “lawful acts . . . in furtherance of” a qui tam action or “other efforts to stop one or more violations” of the FCA.

In pursuing claims under the FCA, whistleblowers, known as relators in the qui tam context, may disclose documents to the government that their employers consider confidential when these documents are reasonably necessary to support the fraud allegations. For example, a court dismissed counterclaims for breach of contract alleging that an employee-whistleblower violated the confidentiality agreement by disclosing documents to the government and noted the strong public policy that protects whistleblowers from retaliation for reporting allegations of fraud to the government.[1]  However, whistleblowers must be careful not to take documents beyond those that show fraud, and relators who have indiscriminately taken large quantities of documents have not been afforded protections from claims by the employer for breach of contract.[2]

Limitations and Potential Risks of Document Disclosures

While the FCA, SOX, and the Dodd-Frank Act provide robust protections to whistleblowers who report wrongdoing to government regulators, law enforcement agencies, or Congress, these laws do not provide absolute protection. The availability of protection for taking confidential documents depends on what the whistleblower takes, how much material she takes, and to whom she gives it.

If a whistleblower has information that may be deemed attorney-client privileged, for example, she should be careful not to disclose this information to any third party and should speak with a whistleblower attorney before making such a disclosure. Similarly, disclosures made to news outlets are not afforded the same protections as disclosures made to regulators, law enforcement agencies, or Congress. Nearly a decade ago, the Ninth Circuit held that disclosures to media outlets were not protected by SOX.[3]  Whistleblower protections for disclosures made to the press vary depending on the particular state or federal law, as well as the specific context and circumstances of the disclosure,[4] so it is important to proceed cautiously and to seek the advice of a whistleblower attorney before sharing information with media outlets.

Further, if a whistleblower takes information that constitutes an employer’s trade secrets, the employer could sue for misappropriation of trade secrets. Such whistleblowers may have protection under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (the “DTSA”), which includes a safe harbor provision for whistleblowers in certain circumstances. The DTSA provides immunity from civil or criminal liability under any federal or state trade secret law for disclosure of a trade secret that is made either: (1) in confidence to government officials or to an attorney “solely for the purpose of reporting or investigating a suspected violation of law” or (2) in a complaint or other document in a legal proceeding, if that document is filed under seal. Whistleblowers may invoke this immunity when faced with an employer’s claim for misappropriation of trade secrets, but only if they disclosed the documents in one of these two circumstances.[5]

Potential whistleblowers also should consider whether their actions might violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”) if they use their computers to access their employer’s documents to provide support for their whistleblower claims. In general, whistleblowers should not fear prosecution under the CFAA so long as they access a computer with authorization and do not obtain information located in areas on the computer to which their access is prohibited. In Van Buren v. United States, 141 S.Ct. 1648 (2021), the Supreme Court held that an individual violates the law only when she accesses information that she is prohibited from accessing. This ruling protects whistleblowers, who prior to the Court’s opinion may have faced a CFAA claim by the employer for gathering documentary evidence for the purpose of supporting a whistleblower claim even though the whistleblower had not exceeded her authorized access on the employer’s computer. Even so, the interpretation of the CFAA under Van Buren means whistleblowers should be careful not to access areas of a computer that are off limits to them (i.e., specific folders with restricted access for only certain levels of employees to which the whistleblower does not belong), regardless of whether their purpose is to gather evidence to support their whistleblower claim.

Finally, employees should understand that the whistleblower laws discussed above do not protect disclosures to the press. In the case of Ms. Haugen, it is possible that Facebook could pursue an action against her for providing internal documents to media outlets, including claims for breach of contract or misappropriation of trade secrets. KMB partner Lisa Banks spoke with CNN about these potential risks in Ms. Haugen’s case.

Conclusion

Whistleblowers like Ms. Haugen are integral to holding companies accountable and assisting state and federal agencies in investigations against companies that may have engaged in serious misconduct. Strong public policy favors allowing whistleblowers to raise complaints without fear of retaliation from their employers. Whistleblowers have a number of protections available to them if they share documents with government regulators, law enforcement, or Congress, yet they should proceed cautiously and consult with an attorney before disclosing documents to the press. An experienced whistleblower lawyer can assist employees in understanding the scope of their rights and how to proceed in a manner that maximizes the protections and incentives available to them.

[1] See U.S. ex rel. Cieszynski Lifewatch Servs., Inc., 2016 WL 2771798, at *5 (N.D. Ill. May 13, 2016)

[2] See, e.g., U.S. ex rel. Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1062 (9th Cir. 2011) (concluding that the relator’s “grabbing of tens of thousands of documents” was too overbroad and unreasonable to warrant protection from liability for breach of contract for violating the employer’s confidentiality agreement).

[3] Tides v. The Boeing Co., 644 F.3d 809 (9th Cir. 2011).

[4] Compare Pacheco v. Waldrop, 84 F. Supp. 3d 606, 609 (W.D. Ky. 2015) (holding that complaints made to newspapers did not qualify as protected disclosures for the purpose of protections under the Kentucky Whistleblower Act) with Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. MacLean, 574 U.S. 383, 398-99 (2015) (holding that the federal employee-whistleblower’s public disclosures made to media were not “specifically prohibited by law” and were therefore entitled to protections under the Whistleblower Protection Act); Chambers v. Dep’t of Interior, 602 F.3d 1370, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (concluding that statements made by a federal government employee to a newspaper about a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety were protected disclosures under the Whistleblower Protection Act).

[5] See FirstEnergy Corp. v. Pircio, — F. Supp. 3d —, 2021 WL 857107, at*4-5 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 8, 2021) (concluding that the defendant-employee who shared documents with his attorney, who then provided documents to the government, was protected by the immunity provision of the DTSA because he provided these documents solely for the purpose of reporting a violation of the law).

Copyright Katz, Marshall & Banks, LLP

Article By Alia Al-Khatib of Katz, Marshall & Banks, LLP

For more articles on whistleblowers, visit the NLR Criminal Law / Business Crimes section.

GovCon Fraud Grounded: Whistleblower Receives Reward for Reporting Aviation Equipment Government Contracting Fraud

The United States Department of Justice settled a case against aviation equipment defense contractor Airbus Defense and Space Inc. (ADSI) for charging improper fees on government contracts. Under the terms of the settlement, the defense contractor paid $1,043,475 to resolve False Claims Act allegations. A former employee of the government contractor reported these improper fees and will receive $157,220 of the government’s recovery.

According to the allegations, the contractor included an unapproved cost rate on contracts, did not accurately disclose fees, and worked out a storage overbilling scheme with a third-party contractor, causing the government to pay more for storage than necessary. To disguise an additional and sometimes undisclosed indirect cost rate, the contractor added what they called an “Orlando Factor” to various price proposals for 62 contracts. Indirect cost rates are a complex portion of government contracting arrangements whereby a contractor attempts to obtain reimbursement for their company’s operational costs. From 2016-2017, this aviation equipment contractor’s “Orlando Factor” was applied in addition to their indirect cost rate approved by the federal agencies with which they were contracting.

The allegations further describe additional fees the contractor tacked onto equipment acquisitions in violation of federal acquisition regulations. Moreover, the contractor listed an unverified affiliate fee on its proposals. Finally, the contractor inflated storage costs by a factor of 10, resulting in General Dynamics passing on $80,000 in storage fees to the U.S. Navy instead of $8,000 in fees.

Defense contracting fraud harms taxpayers; inflating the cost of obtaining equipment can make defense budgets spiral out of control. This particular contractor seems to have found multiple ways to hide costs and pad proposals so as to turn a profit above and beyond their cost of doing business.

A former employee of ASDI reported these fraudulent practices and is being rewarded for speaking up, including receiving funds to pay for their expenses, attorneys’ fees, and costs. The Department of Justice needs whistleblowers to report government contracts fraud. Last year, only 35 defense fraud cases were filed by whistleblowers. With $720 billion spent, more fraud is out there.

© 2021 by Tycko & Zavareei LLP
For more articles on Government Contracts, visit the NLR

Government Contracts, Maritime & Military Law type of law section.