(Retaliatory measures misfire for Centene! Missouri court of appeals directs it to pay $ 2.1 million in damages)
The verdict of the Missouri Court of Appeals came as a shock to Centene and the corporation, which is known for adopting robust arm methods including intimidation and censorship to silence anyone who seeks answers. Christine Pitcher was given $ 2.1 million in punitive damages, indicating that the jury was appalled by the Fortune 500 Corporation’s business practices.
With more wrongdoings coming to light due to whistleblower disclosures, public opinion is overwhelmingly in favor of the injured employee who has been fired as a retaliatory measure.
The Missouri Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Ms. Pitcher in the Pitcher vs. Centene case. The verdict disregarded all of Centene’s and AcariaHealth Pharmacy’s arguments and upheld the damages awarded to Ms. Pitcher by a previous court. It dismissed concerns that the damages awarded were excessively high, setting an example for companies considering retaliation as a means of discouraging whistleblowers.
Hushing a whistleblower = obstructing justice
The United States Supreme Court ruled in 2014 that failing to shield whistleblowers from justice by their employers would put them in an impossible situation, split between the need to testify truthfully and the desire to avoid counterattack and maintain their employment.
Many corporations utilize retaliation as a strong-arm approach to keep their employees from leaking specifics about corporate rules that could harm the company’s image in the general public’s eyes.
Although the law allows employees to raise a red flag, firms and businesses have discovered ways to silence employees and discourage others from doing so. Bullying, gagging, isolating an employee, not paying them their due when it comes to bonuses and assessments, and terminating the service contract are just a few of the tactics used.
Ms. Christine Pitcher, a Missouri native and certified pharmacist who was hired by Acaria, a Centene subsidiary, in May 2014, is not an isolated example. She began her career as the director of a pharmacy in Lenexa, Kansas. However, her job was unexpectedly terminated in 2016.
She had been given a “last chance agreement” before firing, which indicated unequivocally that her behavior was unethical and inappropriate. There had been no previous instances of verbal or written disciplinary action taken against her before this. Christine was advised that her services were no longer necessary months after her last chance agreement. She’d been fired from her job.
The entire incident appeared to be retaliatory, as Ms. Pitcher had voiced her concerns about the way billings in July 2016. She questioned the validity of Daraprim’s virtual transfer and suspected that billing methods involving Medicaid reimbursements would violate the False Claims Act.
While Ms. Pitcher may have been acting in good faith, since corporations that defraud federally supported health care programs may be held responsible under the False Claims Act, her boss did not.
The suppression of dissent has a long history.
Centene and its subsidiaries have tried to silence opposition, whether it came from the company or clients who refused to be intimidated by their swindling practices.
Pitcher filed a common law retaliatory discharge action against Centene in Jackson County, Missouri, discouraged by her short notice and particular that her discoveries triggered it.
Ms. Pitcher won her case, and the jury ordered Centene to pay her $2.1 million in damages. Aside from the $80,012 in compensatory damages and $750,000 in punitive penalties, the court ordered the insurance firm to pay the whistleblower half a million dollars to cover her back salary until she retired.
The court dismissed all of Centene’s arguments, stating that while reinstatement is the preferable option when employees are wrongfully terminated, it would not apply in Ms. Pitcher’s instance because the employer-employee relationship was beyond repair, necessitating front compensation.
Averting the spotlight and viciously silence a whistleblower is possible to prevent authorities and people from raising questions about misconduct– but only for a limited time. Truth has a way of edging its way to the surface.
