10 U.S.C. § 2409
Renumbered § 4701]
[renumbered]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 63
cases (25 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: United States ex rel. Cody v. ManTech Int'l Corp., 207 F. Supp. 3d 610 (E.D. Va. 2016).
United States ex rel. Cody v. ManTech Int'l Corp., 207 F. Supp. 3d 610 (E.D. Va. 2016). “§ 3730 (h), and the Defense Contractor Whistleblower Protection Act (“DCWPA”), 10 U.S.C. § 2409 . 1 ManTech moved for summary judgment on June 30, 2016 [Doc.”
Brach v. Conflict Kinetics Corp., 221 F. Supp. 3d 743 (E.D. Va. 2016). “§ 3730 (h), or for reprisal under the Defense Contractor Whis-tleblower Protection Act (“DCWPA”), 10 U.S.C § 2409; (ii) Whether a plaintiff states a claim for wrongful denial of employment benefits and retaliation under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29…”
Manion v. Spectrum Healthcare Resources, 966 F. Supp. 2d 561 (E.D.N.C. 2013). “Plaintiff then filed suit in this Court against Spectrum and Nitelines alleging claims for illegal reprisal for protected disclosures under the Defense Contractor Whistleblower Protection Act, 10 U.S.C. § 2409 , for unlawful discharge in violation of public policy, breach of…”
Glynn v. Edo Corp., 536 F. Supp. 2d 595 (D. Maryland 2008). “§ 1513 (e) and 10 U.S.C. § 2409 , and not the FCA, as the public policy sources that his wrongful discharge suit seeks to vindicate.”
Winters v. Houston Chronicle Publ'g Co., 795 S.W.2d 723 (Tex. 1990). “1990); Armed Forces, 10 U.S.C. § 2409 (a) (1988) (Defense Contractors); Financial Institution Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act, 12 U.”
Cejka v. Vectrus Sys. Corp., 292 F. Supp. 3d 1175 (D. Colo. 2018). “("Vectrus"), for common law retaliatory termination (Claim I); violation of 10 U.S.C. § 2409 , the Department of Defense whistleblower statute (Claim II); and common law outrageous conduct (Claim III).”
Sylvia Singletary v. Howard Univ., 939 F.3d 287 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “§ 2087 (a)(1), the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1987, 10 U.S.C. § 2409 (a)(1), the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, 21 U.”
Mayo v. Questech, Inc., 727 F. Supp. 1007 (E.D. Va. 1989). “The second question is whether the “Whistleblow *1008 er” statute, 10 U.S.C. § 2409 , affords plaintiff and others a private cause of action.”
Pacheco v. Raytheon Co., 777 F. Supp. 1089 (D.R.I. 1991). “Pacheco brought this action on June 12, 1991, seeking reinstatement and compensatory and punitive damages under 10 U.S.C.A. § 2409 (West Supp.1991) (suspended April 6, 1991), the federal whistle-blower statute for employees of defense contractors.”
Smolinski v. MSPB, 23 F.4th 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2022). “” 10 U.S.C. § 2409 (g)(6)(1). Likewise, the statute that extends whistleblower protections to employees of other federal contractors defines it as “an arbitrary and ca- pricious exercise of authority that is inconsistent with the mission of the executive agency concerned.”
Nantkwest, Inc. v. Matal, 860 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “”); 10 U.S.C. § 2409 (c)(1)(C) (per- mitting agency head to require that contractor pay “an amount equal to the aggregate amount of all costs and expenses (including attorneys’ fees and expert witnesses’ fees)” in connection with complaint regarding a reprisal); 15 U.”
Nantkwest, Inc. v. Iancu, 898 F.3d 1177 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “§ 5005 (b)(2)(B) (providing that, *1189 in absence of breach of warranty, amount of indemnity shall be sum of "interest and expenses (including costs and reasonable attorney's fees and other expenses of representation)"); 10 U.S.C. § 2409 (c)(1)(C) (permitting agency head to…”
— 10 U.S.C. § 2409(a) — 1 case
Kappouta v. Valiant Integrated Servs., LLC (S.D. Cal. 2021).
— 10 U.S.C. § 2409(c) — 1 case
Auth. to Investigate Fed. Aviation Admin. Emp. Complaints Alleging Reprisal for Whistleblowing (OLC 1997).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.