Page 99 - An Indispensible Resource for Being a Credible Activist

A company or person whose plans for funds have been foiled because you pointed out
this error will be angry and may try to lie and say it is not an error. They might say that your
judgment is faulty and that the information you raise is false. You may even be told that you
are inappropriately overstepping the boundaries of your position in the company. Some
companies and fraudsters are better at hiding their anger than others. Some will try the pre-
viously mentioned “Jedi Mind Trick” on you and simply thank you graciously for having
raised your concerns and then assure you that there is no error or wrongdoing. The ques-
tion is this: Do they go into detail about why there is no error or wrongdoing to an extent
that satisfies your concerns while also allowing you to engage freely in a conversation
exploring why you are concerned, given the information you have related to the issues? Or
do they simply say, “There is no wrongdoing here” and leave it at that? It would be wise to
be suspicious of the latter response.
A variation on the angry response is what I call “preemptive retaliation.” In this case,
you may have had to unwittingly supply some of the information needed for the scheme. Of
course, you haven’t been told, “this is a scheme; make sure the information says this on it.”
Therefore, you provide the information as requested. Then, because the information you
supply is problematic, someone with authority over you may actually chastise, discipline, or
otherwise criticize your work as sloppy, incorrect, or of poor quality. This enables the per-
son to revise your information or construct his or her own false information, which is
needed in order for the fraudulent claim to be successful and profitable. If you are sure that
your original information was true and that the information that has instead been used on
an official city, state, or government claim for funds of any kind is false, you most certainly
need to consult with a FCA or qui tam attorney.
This kind of angry response is tricky. Not only is your concern being discounted and
the information you carefully prepared being ignored, but your work is being revised into
something you know is false and you are now being discredited. This is preemptive in that
should you bring a claim in the future regarding this issue, your employer has already laid
the groundwork to say officially, “Oh that person? That person’s work was incorrect and, in
fact, we were so troubled that we disciplined her for that bad information she gave us.”
This might make it harder for you to prove that your information was correct—but it
might not. It all depends on what other proof you have. If you have access to other records
that prove your information is correct and their information is knowingly and intentionally
doctored, you will want to make sure you have copies of that proof at home just in case your
giving them a chance to correct any fraud results in your immediate termination. (This is
one reason to keep a printed file of significant e-mails at your home.) Although this reaction
would be unusual, it cannot be ignored as a possibility. If your proof is solid and incontro-
vertible, your employer’s discipline of you will only make the employer look even guiltier
and the attempt to cover tracks preemptively will most likely be seen for what it was.
It isn’t always easy to do the right thing. There is certainly stress that comes with it
when you’re working with others, particularly working for others, who consider anyone
questioning them or ensuring that things are done properly as an inconvenience or a blow
to their own egos, which they find intolerable. Leaders who want to comply with employ-
ment and other relevant laws will graciously thank you when errors are pointed out. When
your conscientiousness is responded to with anger, annoyance, disdain, or criticism of your

82 The H R Toolkit