Army Contract Employee Claims He Was Fired for Refusing to Submit False Reports
Monday, September 06, 2010
Robert D. Johnson is suing his former employer, Technologists Inc., claiming he was demoted and then fired for not collecting payments from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for work the company did not complete in Afghanistan as part of its government contract.
In the summer of 2009, Johnson began working as a construction supervisor for Technologists in Herat. In January 2010, Johnson was told to collect a “progress” payment for work that had not actually been completed. He told his bosses that he would not do so because it would be illegal. Other employees of the company told Johnson that Technologists has a habit of getting “progress” payments from the Corps of Engineers, but instead of finishing the work, it applies the funding towards other projects. Johnson also asserts that the company uses inferior materials on its projects for the government.
Johnson reported the false report situation to the Corps of Engineers project engineer, after which Technologists demoted and then terminated him. He claims that his termination violated the retaliation clause of the False Claims Act, which was passed by Congress in 1863 to counter dubious practices by defense contractors during the Civil War. He is asking $100,000 to cover lost wages, benefits and legal fees.
-David Wallechinsky, Noel Brinkerhoff
This is Afghanistan (by Cameron Langford, Courthouse News Service)
Robert Johnson v. Technologists Inc. (District Court, Bexar County, Texas) (pdf)
- Top Stories
- Unusual News
- Where is the Money Going?
- Controversies
- U.S. and the World
- Appointments and Resignations
- Latest News
- U.S. Security Company Seeks Dismissal of Abu Ghraib Torture Charges because Victims were not Allowed to Leave Iraq
- 5 Biggest Banks Gain another Victory in Control of $700 Trillion Derivatives Market
- Is Living in the United States Bad for Your Health?
- Is FBI Running out of Time to Solve Civil Rights Era Cold Cases?
- Alabama City Told Traffic Camera Violators to Appeal to Non-Existent Court




Comments