Law Offices of J. Whitfield Larrabee

New Statute Grants Right to Sue For Unlawful Harassment

admin — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 16:57:18 +0000

On February 9, 2010 Governor Deval Patrick approved legislation that created a new right to sue for unlawful harassment in Massachusetts. G.L. ch. 258E grants a right to sue for compensatory damages and attorney’s fees to anyone who is subjected to harassment as that term is defined. Harassment includes “3 or more acts of willful and malicious conduct aimed at the plaintiff with the intent to cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property and that did in fact cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property.” Harassment also includes an act of sexual assault and battery or criminal harassment as that term is defined in a separate statute.

Although sexual and racial harassment has long been illegal, employers previously could avoid liability for egregious but non-discriminatory instances of harassment. Until now, general acts of harassment were not actionable unless they violated other established laws. With the enactment of ch. 258E, employers are now potentially liable for a broad range of activities that were not previously unlawful. Now, repeated verbal or physical conduct that threatens, intimidates, denigrates or shows hostility or aversion toward an individual will amount to unlawful harassment. This amounts to a “vast, relatively untapped, area of employer liability” that has the potential to significantly improve the workplace environment. For example, an employer who repeatedly and loudly berates an employee publicly or in front of other employees might be subject to liability for unlawful non-discriminatory harassment.

Ch. 258E also establishes a mechanism for individuals who are subject to harassment to go to court and obtained a protective order. These orders can restrain harassers from engaging in further acts of harassment and abuse and require harassers to keep a certain distance away from victims of harassment.

Local Paper Reports on Sexual Harassment Case

admin — Wed, 12 May 2010 18:39:56 +0000

Woman sues town for alleged sexual harassment

Lawyer for highway employee states, ‘we have a very good case’

By Jonathan Cook

Turley Publications Reporter

May 7, 2010

WARREN – The Warren Highway Department is an alleged hostile zone of seething tension, a place where one employee’s gender has made her a target, according to a complaint filed against the town in Worcester Superior Court on Oct. 2, 2009.

The case is currently in the discovery phase and has so far included at least one deposition.

The plaintiff is Warren Highway Department driver and laborer Patricia LeBoeuf, who claims she was mistreated in an ongoing manner by Foreman Raymond Blais.

According to the court claim, Blais grabbed her buttocks. The complaint further states that Blais allegedly said LeBoeuf is a “lesbian,” “she needs a blood test,” and “she likes them young.”

At least some of those incidents have a witness. Two other highway employees spoke of their concerns in court documents for how Blais mistreated LeBoeuf.

According to the town’s internal sexual harassment investigation, highway workers Armond Valois and Larry Pease agreed that, “Blais is generally verbally abusive to everyone in the department including the department head.” The department head is Highway Surveyor Gary Odiorne.

When asked Sunday evening if he was ever mistreated by Blais, Odiorne said, “that’s water under the bridge.” Otherwise, he wouldn’t comment.

But for LeBoeuf, it is not water under the bridge. According to her complaint, the Board of Selectmen suspended Blais for three days and told Odiorne to keep Blais from working with LeBoeuf.

Instead, LeBoeuf claims, Odiorne threatened to discipline her if she would not work with Blais. When she continued to refuse, the complaint states, she was ordered to acquire a license that the other employees were not.

The town, through its attorney Patricia Rapinchuk, has no comment. Rapinchuk did say that she advised Blais not to speak with reporters. As a result, Blais was not reached for comment at the Highway Department or through his co-worker.

When he was deposed in court, Blais admitted saying LeBoeuf “likes them young” in front of a co-worker. Blais explained, “I was joking with Patty.”

According to court documents, one of the questions put to Blais stated, “Did you ever say to her, ‘I don’t want you sleeping with Larry anymore?’”

Blais replied, “I remember that instance, yes.”

“Larry” is a reference to a co-worker and LeBoeuf alleges she felt embarrassed and humiliated and on many occasions and told Blais to “knock it off.”

She claims one time his response was “That’s your (expletive) problem.”

Blais denies saying that in records obtained by the Quaboag Current.

On the other hand, Blais admits to asking her what she’d have to do to get an air brake license from a state trooper. LeBoeuf asserts that what Blais really said was a humiliating reference to oral sex. One highway employee recalled the same instance, according to the town’s investigation. That report notes that Blais directed “negative comments” toward LeBoeuf.

In the deposition, Blais admitted that he has occasionally, while on the work site, joked about women’s breast sizes.

LeBoeuf said she was feeling ill everyday and dreaded going to work. She said she saw a therapist and was told that she didn’t need a therapist, she needed a lawyer.

Her attorney, Whitfield Larrabee, said, “We have a very strong case.”

He added, “We will prove that Patricia LeBoeuf was subjected to intolerable and illegal sex discrimination and sexual harassment. Her supervisor has admitted to making a variety of sexually inappropriate statements to Ms. LeBoeuf, and the sexual harassment was confirmed by the town’s own investigation.”

Larrabee noted that the town is insured for liability, something Rapinchuk confirmed, but no settlement offers have been aired, both attorneys said.

As for the defendant’s response in court, every alleged wrongdoing has been denied, one after another, “The defendant denies the allegations.”

Affirmative defenses in the defendant’s response included stating, “The discretionary function exemption applies so as to preclude any imposition of liability,” and “the plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”

This isn’t the only controversy Blais has been involved with since 2008. In December of that year, he was under investigation by the state police regarding stolen town property. The property, a pair of backhoe buckets and a twister arm, was returned and Blais was suspended for 15 days by the Board of Selectmen and made to sign a “last chance agreement.” No charges were filed in that matter.

Execs In $500 Million Scam Receive Very Short Sentences

admin — Tue, 05 May 2009 18:58:54 +0000

A former executive at General Re Corp, who was deeply involved in a reinsurance scam that cost American International Group (AIG) shareholders $500 million, was sentenced on May 4, 2009 to 1 year in prison. Robert Graham, the defendant, was the the associate general counsel at Gen Re - an attorney. He helped to draft the documents that made the fraud possible. Other Gen Re executives convicted of participating in the fraud after a jury trial received sentences in the range of 1 to 4 years. It is unfortunate when the high and mighty are treated leniently while the lowly are severely punished.

Compare this with the case Angela Thompson of New York, a 17 year old who sold 2 ounces of cocaine to an undercover police officer in the presence of her uncle. Her sentence, of not less than 15 years to not more than 25 years, was upheld on appeal. Although this case fell under state law, defendants arrested with even smaller amounts of crack cocaine routinely receive sentences of 5, 10 or even 20 years in prison in our federal courts.

Many workers and retirees have recently seen their retirement accounts decline by 40 to 50%, largely as a result of corporate crime and other misconduct. Although we cannot allow street crime to proliferate, for most Americans, massive corporate crime is a greater threat than petty street crime. For most people, its not the crime in the streets, its the crime in the corporate suites.

Bush Administration Officials Should Be Prosecuted

admin — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:14:32 +0000

High officials in the Bush administration should be prosecuted for crimes that involved the torture of captives at Guantanamo, physical and sexual abuse of prisoners, illegal wiretapping, lying to Congress and extra-terratorial kidnappings. Based on Pentagon investigations, publicly released documents, and admissions of other officials in the Bush Administration, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo and other high officials in the Bush administration conspired to violate the Federal Civil Rights Act, 18, U.S.C. Section 242, the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act, and treaties adopted by the United States, including the Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture. They should be prosecuted because holding these officials accountable will serve as a warning present and future officials, it will help to redeem the image of the United States overseas by demonstrating our commitment to the rule of law, and it will demonstrate that the powerful can be held accountable when they commit enormous crimes just as the weak are held accountable for petty crimes. Our new Attorney General,Eric H. Holder Jr., recently testified that “Waterboarding is torture” and he acknowledged that “We prosecuted our own soldiers for using it in Vietnam.” He noted that waterboarding had been used to torment prisoners during the Inquisition, by the Japanese in World War II and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. If these high officials are permitted to violate the law with impunity, order the torture people held in secret prisons, illegally spy on American citizens and lie about their actions to Congress, our democracy and our freedom will be further eroded.

Whistleblowers Get $10 Million For Medicaid and Medicare Billing Fraud

admin — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:16:17 +0000

Under federal and state false claims acts, whistleblowers can reap huge windfalls by helping the government to uncover fraudulent practices.

In a recent New York case, a patient and a doctor in a whistleblower suit will receive a total of $9.9 million out of a settlement paid to the federal and state governments. New York’s Staten Island University Hospital will pay $88.9 million to settle allegations that it defrauded Medicare, Medicaid and a military insurance program. According to the suit, the hospital intentionally used false billing codes to obtain reimbursement from Medicare. The whistleblowers (legally referred to as “relators”) will receive about 10% of the total amount recovered for the government, even though they themselves suffered no losses.

The Massachusetts and Federal False Claims Act impose liability on companies that present false or fraudulent claims to the government.

In the health care field, the following activities are examples of conduct prohibited by the false claims laws:

• Billing for services not actually provided;
• Billing for undocumented services;
• Making false entries in medical and other records used to support reimbursement;
• Billing for medically unnecessary services;
• Characterizing non-covered services or costs in a way that leads to reimbursement from a government program;
• Assigning incorrect codes in order to obtain a higher reimbursement;
• Making inaccurate, false or inappropriate entries on cost reports;
• Failing to seek payment from beneficiaries who may have other primary payment sources;
• Participating in kickbacks, bribes, or rebates in exchange for referring goods, facilities, services, or items that are reimbursed by government programs.

A violation of the Federal False Claims Act may result in penalties of up to $11,000 per false claim plus three times the amount of damages the government sustains, and exclusion from the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Individuals, including employees, can bring a civil action on behalf of the Federal government for violations of the Federal False Claims Act. In return, the individual may share a percentage of any monetary recovery or settlement. Generally, individuals who bring the actions receive between 10% and 30% of the amount recovered.

The Massachusetts and Federal False Claims Acts prohibit employers from retaliating against any employee by discharging, demoting, harassing, or otherwise discriminating against him because he has reported violations of the False Claims Acts. This prohibition is what is generally referred to as “whistleblower” protection. If an employee experiences prohibited retaliation, he or she is entitled to all relief necessary to make the employee whole such as reinstatement, two times back pay, interest, emotional distress damages, costs, and attorney’s fees.

Whistleblower statutes give employees an incentive to report fraud on the government and protections from retaliaton. Otherwise, employees with information about government fraud would not step forward because they would lose their jobs.

If you have information about a potential false claim, you should contact an attorney promptly and keep it a secret. Only the first whistleblower(s) to file suit gets to share in the recovery, and whistleblowers don’t get a share of the recovery if the fraud becomes public knowledge before suit is filed.

About The Corporate Liability Law Blog

admin — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:46:58 +0000

We created The Corporate Liability Blog to provide information that is helpful to plaintiffs and their attorneys who are working to hold corporations accountable when they violate the law. We will soon be regularly posting commentary, important documents, and links to useful websites and blogs.