case 20.4

Score: 88%

1. What law(s) was/were involved in this case? – 7 points

The law or laws involved in this are:

Anti-retaliation [] provision is which states that any employee shall be entitled to all relief necessary to him if he is discharged or discriminated because of unlawful acts done by the employee.

Note: This case also involved the False Claim Act (FCA) and the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989..

2. What was/were the plaintiff’s complaint(s)? – 7 points

Mr. Harrington had learned of the chicanery performed by Aggregate employees and had reported about it to FCA the federal government. The high level employee had learned about this act of Mr. Harrington and was fired. Joseph Harrington complained that he was discharged from his job and this was the in retaliation against him for his role as a whistleblower. []

Note: Mr. Harrington also complained that the Aggreate’s claim of discharging him for failing a drug test was a pretext for retaliation, along with the return-to-work physical and the lost split drug screen of his urine sample.

3. What was/were the defendant(s) argument(s)? – 10 points

The defendant, Aggregate, argues that the employee has been discharged for refusing to submit the follow up drug test[]. The repeated refusal was deemed equivalent of to a positive drug test and was the reason of discharging him[]. Moreover, of the four month gap between the time that the company learned of the appellant’s relator status and the time he was fired is too long interval to support a finding of causation[].

4. What was/were the reason(s) for the court’s decision? - 10 points

On the return to jobUpon returning to his job, Mr. Harrington was asked to take a drug test several times without any requirement for the same[]. First time,The first time Mr. Harrington was asked to take a physical and a drug test was on the day he returned to the job. He objected to the drug test citing the union contract. The second attempt to make him take the test was made by citing the incident of 2005 with no clear evidence to impose this requirement[]. Third The third time, he was randomly shortlisted for the drug test and Aggregate could not produce an affidavit stating how Mr. Harrington was shortlisted which also questions thequestioned Aggregate’s intentions[]. Finally the appellant, Mr. Harrington was discharged stating the reason of his refusal to take the drug test and this refusal was deemed equivalent of positive drug test without any conclusive drug test.

Thus Aggregate’s repeated insistence on a drug test for spurious reasons[] contributes to the fact that Aggregate was trying to find a convenient way to get rid of Mr. Harrington. So from all the above points the court inferred that Mr. Harrington was terminated from job due to retaliatory reasons[].

5. Answer the questions in the book about the case.

a- Do you agree with the court’s decision?

b- Does the release Harrington signed bar this lawsuit for retation?

c- Is there an ethical resolution to this case?

A- Yes, I agree with the court’s decision[] – 10 points. Mr. Harrington was terminated from his job for his refusal to take the drug test without any conclusive drug test .Mr. Harrington had learned of the chicanery performed by Aggregate employees and had reported about it to FCAthe federal government. The high level employees had learned about this act of Mr. Harrington and fired him. Also the repeated insistence on a drug test for spurious reasons seemed as Aggregate senior employees were trying to find a convenient way to get rid of Mr. Harrington[] – 10 points.

B- I believe the provision was to protect employees and provide all relief necessary to him if he is discharged or discriminated because of ulawful acts done by Aggregate. They must be satisfied with the provision and can expect more employees to act in accordance to the law.- 7 points

Comment: Explain that the release does not keep Harrington from filing a claim for future illegal actions by Aggregate. The release only pertains to Aggregate’s breach of the contract

C- Mr. Harrington had reported to FCA federal government about the chicanery performed by Aggregate. In an act of retaliation, Aggregate had fired him. The court’s decision was in favor of Mr. Harrington and they were able to provide necessary help to him when he was discharged because of lawful acts done. Thus I think the end result was ethical[] 10 points.

6. If you agree or disagree with the court’s decision, explain why.

I agree with the court’s decision as Aggregate terminated terminate Mr. Harrington from his job without any conclusive drug test. Also the sequence of events which followed asking appellant to take drug test again seemed as a method to get rid of him.

7. What advice would you give to employers from this case? – 10 points

I would recommend that the employers should not supply materials of lower quality than specified[]. Also the employers should not take retaliatory actions against employees which are protected by Anti-retaliation provision []and should try to maintain ethical practices at the workplace[].

Writing: 7 points --- work on your sentence structure. See corrections/edits on the paper.