Table of Contents

SERVICES CASES

• U.S. ex rel Wilson v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.
• Adair v. Stockton Unified Sch. Dist.
• 1-10 Indus. Assoc., LLC v. US
• Filar v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Chicago
• Samuelson v. LaPorte Cmty. Sch. Corp.
• W. Shoshone Nat'l Council v. US

SERVICES CASES

U.S. 4th Circuit, May 16, 2008
U.S. ex rel Wilson v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., No. 07-1516
In a qui tam action brought under the False Claims Act, denial of a motion for leave to file an amended complaint and a decision to stay employment claims pending arbitration are affirmed where: 1) a form submitted to the government does not meet the requirements of an objective falsehood under the FCA since it is based on the interpretation of a contract clause; 2) there was no fraudulent inducement since the form submitted to the government was not key in inducing the government to award work to defendant; 3) a third amended complaint failed to plead with the particularity required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 4) relator's claims of retaliatory termination fell within the arbitration clause of their employment contract; 5) the FCA allows for arbitration of termination claims; and 6) the arbitration agreements were enforceable under Texas law. Read more...

California Appellate Districts, May 19, 2008
Adair v. Stockton Unified Sch. Dist., No. C054294
In an action brought by senior-teacher plaintiffs after a school district entered into a collective bargaining agreement for a new "compressed" salary schedule which allows teachers to obtain merit increases in salary more quickly, judgment granting mandamus relief to plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) the implementation of the salary schedule violated the uniformity requirement of Education Code section 45028; 2) no statutory exception to the uniformity requirement applied; and 3) the trial court did not exceed its powers in remedying the violation. Read more...

U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals, May 21, 2008
1-10 Indus. Assoc., LLC v. US, No. 2007-5124
In a contract dispute, an order imposing sanctions on the government's attorney for violations of counsel's duty of candor to the court under Rule of the United States Court of Federal Claims 11(b) is reversed and the case remanded where: 1) failure to inform the sanctioned attorney that his conduct in a prior case provided evidence of a pattern of misconduct constituted reversible error; and 2) a sanctioned attorney's mistake as to choice of theory or miscalculation of facts necessary to sustain the theory does not necessarily equate with breach of the duty of candor when the attorney does not make any affirmative representation based on the facts. Read more...

U.S. 7th Circuit, May 22, 2008
Filar v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Chicago, No. 07-1275
In a disability and age discrimination action arising from a Board of Education's decision to change plaintiff's full time teacher status to a substitute teacher, as well as their refusal to accommodate her need to be assigned to schools close to public transportation due to her health condition, summary judgment for defendant is reversed as to the age discrimination claim and affirmed as to the disability claim where: 1) the court erred as to the issue of similarly situated employees since the seniority scheme at the school could easily be manipulated due to the discretionary freedom given to the principal to make decisions; 2) a legitimate non-discriminatory reason give by defendant was open to two interpretations and slightly preponderated towards a showing of age discrimination; and 3) a requested accommodation was not reasonable since it would amount to preferential treatment under a collective bargaining agreement in excusing plaintiff from certain job requirements, and the ADA does not require waiver of normal job requirements. Read more...

U.S. 7th Circuit, May 22, 2008
Samuelson v. LaPorte Cmty. Sch. Corp., No. 06-4351
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action for violations of plaintiff's First Amendment rights when his contract as a coach was not renewed in alleged retaliation for comments made about the school, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the school's chain of command policy requires staff members to follow the chain of command only on matters requiring administrative attention, and thus does not restrict protected speech; and 2) plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his contract as coach was not renewed because of the incidences of speech at issue. Read more...

U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals, May 22, 2008
W. Shoshone Nat'l Council v. US, No. 2007-5020
In a suit seeking to invalidate a 1977 Indian Claims Commission (ICC) judgment awarding compensation for the taking of plaintiffs' lands, as well as additional compensation and other relief under the Treaty of Ruby Valley of 1863, summary judgment for the government is affirmed where: 1) a claim that the ICC allegedly denied plaintiff due process in reaching its judgment was untimely, and thus the Court of Federal Claims lacked subject matter jurisdiction; and 2) a claim for $14 billion as prejudgment interest from the stipulated date of the taking (1872) until the time of the award, failed as the Treaty of Ruby Valley did not recognize that plaintiffs have title in the disputed territory. Read more...