Skip to comments.Court rules against whistle-blower (SCOTUS, 6-2 decision)
Posted on 03/27/2007 9:51:13 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court left an 81-year-old retired engineer without a penny to show for his role in exposing fraud at a former nuclear weapons plant in a ruling that makes it harder for whistle-blowers to claim cash rewards.
James Stone stood to collect up to $1 million from a lawsuit he filed in 1989 against Rockwell International, now part of aerospace giant Boeing Co., over problems with environmental cleanup at the now-closed Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant northwest of Denver.
A court eventually ordered Rockwell to pay the government nearly $4.2 million for false claims the company submitted. Stone could have received up to a quarter of Rockwell's payment, under the False Claims Act.
But Justice Antonin Scalia, writing in the 6-2 ruling Tuesday, said Stone was not entitled to recover any money because he lacked "direct and independent knowledge of the information upon which his allegations were based." Scalia said Stone had little connection to the jury's ultimate verdict against Rockwell.
The company must pay the entire penalty anyway. The only question before the court was whether Stone would get a cut.
The outcome was cheered by business groups that wanted the court to limit whistle-blowers in false claims lawsuits. Since Congress reinvigorated the Civil War-era law in 1986, those suits have returned $11 billion to the government. Recent high-profile cases include settlements with leading pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Robin Conrad, senior vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce National Chamber Litigation Center, said the decision "is a very important victory for every government contractor."
The decision will cause whistle-blowers, or relators, to think twice before they file false claims lawsuits, said Peter B. Hutt II, an expert in false claims lawsuits in Washington.
"The principal thing the court did is essentially try to preclude relators from engaging in fishing expeditions," said Hutt, a lawyer at the Miller and Chevalier firm.
James Moorman, president of the advocacy group Taxpayers Against Fraud Education Fund, agreed. Individuals whose information leads the government to pursue fraud can be told years later that they can't collect anything, Moorman said.
"No whistle-blower can afford to pursue a case to resolution under these circumstances," he said.
Sen. Charles Grassley (news, bio, voting record), R-Iowa, a leading congressional supporter of whistle-blower claims, said lawmakers should consider changes to the False Claims Act to make sure people are rewarded when they uncover wrongdoing.
"The Supreme Court has made it even more difficult to get to the bottom of waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer money," Grassley said.
The Bush administration sided with Stone, arguing that it was in the government's interest to encourage whistle-blowers, even though the government keeps more money now that Stone has lost.
Hartley Alley, a Colorado-based lawyer who represented Stone, said the decision fails to recognize the importance of Stone's actions at Rocky Flats, now a Superfund cleanup site. "He is the one primarily responsible for exposing the criminal activities of Rockwell International at Rocky Flats," Alley said.
In nearly four decades, some 70,000 plutonium triggers for nuclear bombs were made at Rocky Flats. Production was halted in 1989 because of chronic safety problems, prompting a raid by FBI agents. The Cold War ended before production could resume.
The company pleaded guilty in 1992 to violating federal environmental laws.
Alley said Stone, who lives in Wheat Ridge, Colo., would not agree to an interview. Stone is pursuing one remaining unresolved claim about operations at Rocky Flats, Alley said.
Once allegations are disclosed publicly, often by the media, individuals face a higher hurdle in bringing fraud suits on the government's behalf. Otherwise, people could read a newspaper account or an indictment and then rush to the courthouse to file suit.
The major exception to this rule is if an individual is an original source of the information, which Stone said he was. Stone did not file suit until after problems at Rocky Flats became public. He did, however, approach federal investigators with information about environmental issues before news accounts were published.
The company said his claim was implausible. Stone was laid off the year before Rockwell began submitting false claims saying it was meeting goals of treating low-level radioactive wastes at the former atomic weapons plant.
Justice John Paul Stevens, in a dissent joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said whistle-blowers should have to show only that their information led the government to the fraud, not that the claims ultimately proved to a jury must also have come from them. Justice Stephen Breyer did not take part in the case.
The case is Rockwell International v. U.S., ex rel Stone, 05-1272.
On the Net:
Rockwell Internation: http://tinyurl.com/26m8r3
Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov
I'm divided on this one.
Environmental laws are mostly crap, but qui tam is a good law that's used to go after the scum that rip taxpayers off.
The SC missed the target on this one and told the whistle-blower to take a long walk on a short pier.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.