Rolls-Royce must answer federal whistleblower suit on military engines

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Rolls-Royce must answer whistleblowers’ allegations that the company violated manufacturing standards, concealed defects in military aircraft engines, and retaliated against workers who raised concerns, a federal judge ruled Monday.

Judge William T. Lawrence of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana ruled the lawsuit brought by two former Rolls-Royce safety employees will go forward. Thomas McArtor and Keith Ramsey claim in United States of America ex rel. Thomas McArtor and Keith Ramsey v. Rolls-Royce Corporation, No. 1:08-CV-0133, that they were terminated in retaliation for complaining to the company about safety concerns.

Loevy & Loevy Attorneys at Law in Chicago represents McArtor and Ramsey. The firm’s suit alleges that Rolls-Royce used scrap and defective material and subsequently began using a separate, undisclosed system to track defects. Plaintiffs claim the company failed to comply with a government quality assurance plan in an effort to retain and attract more government contracts. The suit also alleges that Rolls-Royce retaliated against other employees who raised safety concerns.

Messages left for Indianapolis-based Rolls-Royce spokesman Joel Reuter were not immediately returned Tuesday. Reuter told Bloomberg News Service on Monday that he couldn’t immediately comment on the court’s decision.

The suit seeks damages only on Rolls-Royce’s military contracts, which include engines for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, V22 Osprey, C130 Hercules, C130J Super Hercules, Kiowa Warrior and MH-6 Little Bird, RQ-4 Global Hawk, E2 Hawkeye and P3 Orion. The suit also alleges that the safety violations overlap “dual use” engines installed on military and civilian aircraft.

Loevy attorney Mike Kanovitz said in an interview the legal action focuses on engines and parts manufactured in Rolls-Royce’s Indianapolis division beginning in 2003. He said the allegations potentially open the company to damages under the False Claims Act for scores of aircraft engines.

“The government doesn’t have reliability in the product that the government was promised,” Kanovitz said.



Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?