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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT