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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT