FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Friday, September 28, 2012
U.S. Government Intervenes in False Claims Suit Against CH2M Hill Hanford Group
Colorado-based Company Allegedly Engaged in Widespread Time Card Fraud At Department of Energy Nuclear Site
The government has intervened in a lawsuit against CH2M Hill Hanford Group Inc. (CH2M Hill) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, the Department of Justice announced today. CH2M Hill is a subsidiary of CH2M Hill Companies Ltd., a Colorado-based engineering and construction services company.
Between 1999 and 2008, CH2M Hill was a U.S. Department of Energy prime contractor responsible for the management and cleanup of over 170 underground storage tanks containing mixed radioactive and hazardous waste at the Department of Energy’s Hanford Nuclear Site in southeastern Washington. The lawsuit filed by Mr. Schroeder alleges that numerous CH2M Hill hourly employees regularly and substantially overstated the number of hours that they worked. The complaint also alleges that CH2M Hill management knowingly condoned this practice and submitted inflated claims to the Department of Energy that included the fraudulently claimed hours.
Eight former CH2M Hill employees, including Mr. Schroeder, have pleaded guilty to felony charges stemming from the time card fraud. The lawsuit was originally filed under the False Claims Act by Carl Schroeder, a former employee of CH2M Hill.
The False Claims Act authorizes private parties to sue on behalf of the United States and authorizes the United States to intervene in such a suit and take over responsibility for litigating it. Although the act generally authorizes the whistleblower who initiated the suit to share in any recovery, it also bars recovery by any whistleblower who is convicted of criminal conduct for his role in the fraud/ The United States has notified the court that it expects to file a motion to dismiss Mr. Schroeder from the action on the basis of is criminal conduct. Mr. Schroder’s lawsuit is captioned U.S. ex rel. Schroeder v. CH2M Hill, 09-cv-5038.
The claims asserted in this case are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability. The case is being handled by the Civil Division of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Washington, with the assistance of the Department of Energy Office of Inspector General.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR SETTLES SEX DISCRIMINATION CHARGES WITH NASH FINCH CO.
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Minnesota-based food distributor to pay back wages to 84 women — and provide job offers — to settle allegations of sex discrimination at North Carolina facility
LUMBERTON, N.C. — The U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs has reached an agreement with federal contractor Nash Finch Co. to settle allegations of hiring discrimination against female job applicants at the company's distribution facility in Lumberton. In consent findings approved by the department's Office of Administrative Law Judges, Nash Finch Co. has agreed to pay $188,500 in back wages and interest to 84 women who were rejected for the entry-level position of order selector at the company's distribution facility in Lumberton.
"I am glad we were able to achieve a fair resolution in this case," said Solicitor of Labor M. Patricia Smith. "Our economy cannot afford to lose the skills and talents of millions of American women who count on us to enforce equal opportunity laws so that they can find good jobs without fear of discrimination."
OFCCP investigators conducted a review of Nash Finch's employment practices at the Lumberton facility from May 1, 2005, to Dec. 31, 2006. Based on their findings, the agency asserted that Nash Finch had failed to ensure qualified female job applicants received equal consideration for employment without regard to sex as required by Executive Order 11246. OFCCP filed a complaint with the Labor Department's Office of Administrative Law Judges on Nov. 30, 2010, alleging that Nash Finch systematically had discriminated against women who applied for jobs as order selectors during a nine-month period in 2006.
"Our government relies on thousands of private companies to produce the goods and provide the services that we depend on to do our jobs," said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu. "It is in everyone's best interest that contractors like Nash Finch succeed. But, for federal contractors, success is not measured solely by performing a task or providing a service. True success means that, as required by law, every qualified worker has a fair shot at jobs funded by taxpayer dollars."
In addition to the financial remedies, the settlement requires Nash Finch to extend job offers to up to 12 women in the original class as order selector positions become available. The company must also submit progress reports to OFCCP for the next two years.
Women who applied and were rejected for order selector positions at Nash Finch's Lumberton facility between March 1 and Dec. 31, 2006, may be eligible for the back wages, interest and job opportunities in this settlement. The company will attempt to contact all class members to explain their eligibility for these remedies. However, anyone who does not receive such a notice and believes the omission is an error can contact OFCCP's toll-free helpline at 800-397-6251 (TTY: 877-889-5627) for more information.
Nash Finch is based in Minneapolis and is the second-largest publicly traded wholesale food distributor in the nation. The company distributes food products to military commissaries around the world. Since the start of the OFCCP review period on May 1, 2005, Nash Finch has received payments of more than $14 million from the U.S. Department of Defense.
In addition to Executive Order 11246, OFCCP enforces Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act Of 1974. As amended, these three laws require those who do business with the federal government, both contractors and subcontractors, to follow the fair and reasonable standard that they not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran.
Minnesota-based food distributor to pay back wages to 84 women — and provide job offers — to settle allegations of sex discrimination at North Carolina facility
LUMBERTON, N.C. — The U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs has reached an agreement with federal contractor Nash Finch Co. to settle allegations of hiring discrimination against female job applicants at the company's distribution facility in Lumberton. In consent findings approved by the department's Office of Administrative Law Judges, Nash Finch Co. has agreed to pay $188,500 in back wages and interest to 84 women who were rejected for the entry-level position of order selector at the company's distribution facility in Lumberton.
"I am glad we were able to achieve a fair resolution in this case," said Solicitor of Labor M. Patricia Smith. "Our economy cannot afford to lose the skills and talents of millions of American women who count on us to enforce equal opportunity laws so that they can find good jobs without fear of discrimination."
OFCCP investigators conducted a review of Nash Finch's employment practices at the Lumberton facility from May 1, 2005, to Dec. 31, 2006. Based on their findings, the agency asserted that Nash Finch had failed to ensure qualified female job applicants received equal consideration for employment without regard to sex as required by Executive Order 11246. OFCCP filed a complaint with the Labor Department's Office of Administrative Law Judges on Nov. 30, 2010, alleging that Nash Finch systematically had discriminated against women who applied for jobs as order selectors during a nine-month period in 2006.
"Our government relies on thousands of private companies to produce the goods and provide the services that we depend on to do our jobs," said OFCCP Director Patricia A. Shiu. "It is in everyone's best interest that contractors like Nash Finch succeed. But, for federal contractors, success is not measured solely by performing a task or providing a service. True success means that, as required by law, every qualified worker has a fair shot at jobs funded by taxpayer dollars."
In addition to the financial remedies, the settlement requires Nash Finch to extend job offers to up to 12 women in the original class as order selector positions become available. The company must also submit progress reports to OFCCP for the next two years.
Women who applied and were rejected for order selector positions at Nash Finch's Lumberton facility between March 1 and Dec. 31, 2006, may be eligible for the back wages, interest and job opportunities in this settlement. The company will attempt to contact all class members to explain their eligibility for these remedies. However, anyone who does not receive such a notice and believes the omission is an error can contact OFCCP's toll-free helpline at 800-397-6251 (TTY: 877-889-5627) for more information.
Nash Finch is based in Minneapolis and is the second-largest publicly traded wholesale food distributor in the nation. The company distributes food products to military commissaries around the world. Since the start of the OFCCP review period on May 1, 2005, Nash Finch has received payments of more than $14 million from the U.S. Department of Defense.
In addition to Executive Order 11246, OFCCP enforces Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act Of 1974. As amended, these three laws require those who do business with the federal government, both contractors and subcontractors, to follow the fair and reasonable standard that they not discriminate in employment on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, national origin, disability or status as a protected veteran.
Monday, October 1, 2012
FREIGHT FORWARDING COMPANY AGREES TO PAY $2.3 MILLION CRIMINAL FINE TO SETTLE PRICE FIXING CHARGES
FROM: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Company Agrees to Pay a $2.3 Million Criminal Fine
WASHINGTON — A Japanese freight forwarding company has agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $2.3 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to fix certain fees in connection with the provision of freight forwarding services for air cargo shipments from Japan to the United States, the Department of Justice announced today.
Including today’s charge, as a result of this investigation, 14 companies have either pleaded guilty or agreed to plead guilty and to pay more than $100 million in criminal fines.
According to the one count felony charge filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Yamato Global Logistics Japan Co. Ltd. engaged in a conspiracy to fix and to impose certain freight forwarding service fees, including fuel surcharges and various security fees, charged to customers for services provided in connection with freight forwarding shipments of cargo shipped by air from Japan to the United States from about September 2002 until at least November 2007.
As part of the plea agreement, which will be subject to court approval, Yamato Global Logistics Japan Co. Ltd. has agreed to pay a criminal fine of $2,326,774 and to cooperate with the department’s ongoing antitrust investigation.
"Consumers ultimately were forced to pay higher prices on the goods they buy every day as a result of the noncompetitive and collusive service fees charged by these companies," said Scott D. Hammond, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division’s criminal enforcement program. "Prosecuting these kinds of global price-fixing conspiracies continues to be a high priority of the Antitrust Division."
According to the charges, the company carried out the conspiracy by, among other things, agreeing during meetings and discussions to coordinate and impose certain freight forwarding service fees and charges on customers purchasing freight forwarding services for cargo shipped by air from Japan to the United States. The department said the company levied freight forwarding service fees in accordance with the agreements reached and engaged in meetings and discussions for the purpose of monitoring and enforcing adherence to the agreed-upon freight forwarding service fees.
Freight forwarders manage the domestic and international delivery of cargo for customers by receiving, packaging, preparing and warehousing cargo freight, arranging for cargo shipment through transportation providers such as air carriers, preparing shipment documentation and providing related ancillary services.
The company is charged with price fixing in violation of the Sherman Act, which carries a maximum $100 million fine for corporations. The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine.
Company Agrees to Pay a $2.3 Million Criminal Fine
WASHINGTON — A Japanese freight forwarding company has agreed to plead guilty and to pay a $2.3 million criminal fine for its role in a conspiracy to fix certain fees in connection with the provision of freight forwarding services for air cargo shipments from Japan to the United States, the Department of Justice announced today.
Including today’s charge, as a result of this investigation, 14 companies have either pleaded guilty or agreed to plead guilty and to pay more than $100 million in criminal fines.
According to the one count felony charge filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Yamato Global Logistics Japan Co. Ltd. engaged in a conspiracy to fix and to impose certain freight forwarding service fees, including fuel surcharges and various security fees, charged to customers for services provided in connection with freight forwarding shipments of cargo shipped by air from Japan to the United States from about September 2002 until at least November 2007.
As part of the plea agreement, which will be subject to court approval, Yamato Global Logistics Japan Co. Ltd. has agreed to pay a criminal fine of $2,326,774 and to cooperate with the department’s ongoing antitrust investigation.
"Consumers ultimately were forced to pay higher prices on the goods they buy every day as a result of the noncompetitive and collusive service fees charged by these companies," said Scott D. Hammond, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division’s criminal enforcement program. "Prosecuting these kinds of global price-fixing conspiracies continues to be a high priority of the Antitrust Division."
According to the charges, the company carried out the conspiracy by, among other things, agreeing during meetings and discussions to coordinate and impose certain freight forwarding service fees and charges on customers purchasing freight forwarding services for cargo shipped by air from Japan to the United States. The department said the company levied freight forwarding service fees in accordance with the agreements reached and engaged in meetings and discussions for the purpose of monitoring and enforcing adherence to the agreed-upon freight forwarding service fees.
Freight forwarders manage the domestic and international delivery of cargo for customers by receiving, packaging, preparing and warehousing cargo freight, arranging for cargo shipment through transportation providers such as air carriers, preparing shipment documentation and providing related ancillary services.
The company is charged with price fixing in violation of the Sherman Act, which carries a maximum $100 million fine for corporations. The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
UNLAWFUL REFUSAL TO HIRE UNIONIZED EMPLOYEES
FROM: U.S. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The National Labor Relations Board has ruled that Massey Energy Company and its subsidiary, Mammoth Coal Company, unlawfully refused to hire former unionized employees in order to avoid union obligations at a West Virginia coal mine it had purchased.
Massey bought the mine in Kanawha County in 2004 from Horizon Natural Resources Company after Horizon declared bankruptcy. Massey then created Mammoth Coal, a subsidiary, to operate the mine.
In the end, only 19 of the former miners were hired into a workforce of 219. Then, having eliminated the union, Mammoth unlawfully imposed a lower wage structure for all miners, the Board found.
Under the National Labor Relations Act, the buyer of a union company must recognize and bargain with the union if a majority of the buyer’s new employees came from the former union-represented workforce. It is also a violation of labor law to discriminate against union supporters in hiring.
Members Griffin and Block also found that Massey Energy was responsible for the discriminatory treatment of the miners because it directly participated in the unlawful conduct. "Massey made clear to the managers and supervisors making the hiring decisions for Mammoth that Massey would not accept a union in that operation," the Board majority found. In addition, the Board majority, rejecting procedural arguments, found Massey and Mammoth to constitute a single employer based on their integrated operations and lack of arms-length relationship. (The Board had earlier asked all parties to the case to submit supplemental briefs on the single employer question.) Massey is therefore jointly liable for any remedies, including backpay for miners who were unlawfully discriminated against.
On that point, Member Hayes dissented. He found that neither the direct participation issue, nor the single employer issue were raised by the NLRB General Counsel in his complaint or in arguments before an administrative law judge who initially heard the case. He also found that the additional briefing requested by the Board did not cure that failure. "In their collective zeal to hold Massey liable – for the obvious reason that it is far more likely than Mammoth to have funds to meet backpay obligations – the Acting General Counsel and my colleagues have trampled due process," Member Hayes wrote.
In its decision, the Board ordered Mammoth and Massey to offer employment to 85 named former Horizon employees and make them whole for lost earnings, to recognize the union and bargain with it on request, to restore the former terms and conditions of employment, and to bargain in good faith with the union regarding any changes. (In 2011, Massey Energy was purchased by Alpha Natural Resources.)
The National Labor Relations Board has ruled that Massey Energy Company and its subsidiary, Mammoth Coal Company, unlawfully refused to hire former unionized employees in order to avoid union obligations at a West Virginia coal mine it had purchased.
Massey bought the mine in Kanawha County in 2004 from Horizon Natural Resources Company after Horizon declared bankruptcy. Massey then created Mammoth Coal, a subsidiary, to operate the mine.
In the end, only 19 of the former miners were hired into a workforce of 219. Then, having eliminated the union, Mammoth unlawfully imposed a lower wage structure for all miners, the Board found.
Under the National Labor Relations Act, the buyer of a union company must recognize and bargain with the union if a majority of the buyer’s new employees came from the former union-represented workforce. It is also a violation of labor law to discriminate against union supporters in hiring.
Members Griffin and Block also found that Massey Energy was responsible for the discriminatory treatment of the miners because it directly participated in the unlawful conduct. "Massey made clear to the managers and supervisors making the hiring decisions for Mammoth that Massey would not accept a union in that operation," the Board majority found. In addition, the Board majority, rejecting procedural arguments, found Massey and Mammoth to constitute a single employer based on their integrated operations and lack of arms-length relationship. (The Board had earlier asked all parties to the case to submit supplemental briefs on the single employer question.) Massey is therefore jointly liable for any remedies, including backpay for miners who were unlawfully discriminated against.
On that point, Member Hayes dissented. He found that neither the direct participation issue, nor the single employer issue were raised by the NLRB General Counsel in his complaint or in arguments before an administrative law judge who initially heard the case. He also found that the additional briefing requested by the Board did not cure that failure. "In their collective zeal to hold Massey liable – for the obvious reason that it is far more likely than Mammoth to have funds to meet backpay obligations – the Acting General Counsel and my colleagues have trampled due process," Member Hayes wrote.
In its decision, the Board ordered Mammoth and Massey to offer employment to 85 named former Horizon employees and make them whole for lost earnings, to recognize the union and bargain with it on request, to restore the former terms and conditions of employment, and to bargain in good faith with the union regarding any changes. (In 2011, Massey Energy was purchased by Alpha Natural Resources.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)