ILNews

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.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT