Search Site
Menu
Whistleblowing in Afghanistan Allegedly Elicits Retaliatory Response

I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.

Harry S. Truman 

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled in September 2013 that Mike Elder proffered sufficient evidence to continue with his False Claims Act action against DRS Technologies, Inc. (DRS). 

Facts of the case 

DRS, a defense technology company, hired Elder in October 2007 as a telecommunications specialist primarily responsible for installing and instructing the Afghan National Police forces on the various communications equipment. Elder realized that DRS was instructing all of its employees to charge 12 labor hours every day even though they were working only five to six hours per day and often vacationing on Fridays. Elder documented the dishonest billing and raised his concerns with superiors in December 2007. His supervisor instructed Elder to follow the current billing procedure. When Elder reported his hours accurately, his supervisor again told him to change them to 12 hours per day. One week later, DRS moved Elder to eastern Afghanistan. 

As Elder continued to contravene his supervisors’ orders by reporting his hours honestly, he was re-deployed in a more dangerous area called Barge Matal. Neither area offered much work for Elder to do. 

Elder left Barge Matal—because unarmed civilians were not allowed there—and returned to the U.S. Immediately upon arrival, DRS terminated him. 

Preventing retaliation 

The False Claims Act provides a cause of action for citizens who suffer retaliation at work for blowing the whistle on fraud against the U.S. The law states that any employee who suffered adverse employment action because of lawful acts committed by the employee to prevent fraud against the U.S is entitled to whatever relief is necessary to make the employee whole. Courts have identified the following three elements that the plaintiff must prove:

  • Plaintiff took protective action pursuant to a qui tam action under the False Claims Act
  • The employer had notice of these actions
  • The employer took adverse employment actions such as demotion, suspension or termination as a result of plaintiff’s actions

Based on the facts alleged by Elder, the U.S. District Court denied DRS’ motion to dismiss. 

Steve Kardell has been successfully leading clients through qui tam actions for more than 35 years. If you think that you have witnessed fraud against the U.S. Government, contact your Dallas whistleblower attorney to discuss your case.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Honors
Our Office
  • Dallas Office
    4514 Cole Ave
    #600
    Dallas, Texas 75205
    Phone: 214-306-8045
    Fax: 469-729-9926
Testimonials
  • "Steve Kardell was terrific in representing me in some very adversarial discussions with Citigroup and also later represented me in my testimony before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission."  -Richard Bowen, Citigroup Whistleblower

  • "Incredible knowledge of employee related concerns and equally brilliant knowledge of health care regulations, standards of practice. I would recommend this firm to anyone."  -V.B.

  • "Reaching out to Steve Kardell was the best decision I made. His ability to provide immediate insight and direction was very powerful, and a huge relief during a very stressful time period. For anyone struggling with a whistleblower situation, I would highly recommend at least speaking with Steve. After a 10 minute call with him, I had a better understanding of what I was dealing with. Even better, he gave me some immediate hope. In the end Steve did a better job than I thought was possible. Steve was able to get in contact with people in my organization, that I didn’t have access to. Because of his years of experience, he already has contacts in many organizations in Dallas. The entire situation was handled peacefully. I was impressed by his ability to “keep the peace”–rather than creating a battle with the organization. The reason I didn’t reach out to a lawyer initially, was because I thought it would mean an immediate end to any hope of a positive relationship with the company. Steve was able to address my concerns, and in the end I was able to continue to work for them."  -KS

  • "Never thought my career would end like it did after 30 years of service. I was part of the first round of the so called reduction of force. I asked myself how can I be part of this with 30 years of seniority. How did they pick these 90 plus employees? Now, the culture of this organization made you question every decision they made. It wasn’t what you knew it’s was a culture of who you know. Nonetheless, I did not accept their severance package. I immediately starting looking for an attorney who would take on my case. After the initial call to Steve I had hope again. He was open and honest about everything and reassured me he would do his best for me, and he did. I had an awesome outcome. Thanks Steve you’re the best."  -S.S.

FOLLOW US
Facebook Twitter Linkedin RSS Feed JD Supra