131468P.pdf   12/17/2014  Mike Townsend  v.  Bayer HealthCare
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  13-1468
   U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff   
   [PUBLISHED] [Bye, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Gruender, Circuit 
   Judge] 
   Civil case - False Claims Act. In action alleging Bayer fired plaintiff in 
   violation of the anti-retaliation provisions of the False Claims Act, the 
   action was not barred by the 180-day limitations period contained in Ark. 
   Code Ann. Section 21-1-604; the evidence was sufficient to prove defendant 
   terminated plaintiff in retaliation for his report about a physician 
   selling "gray market" drugs and overbilling Medicaid and that the stated 
   reason for his discharge was a pretext; the protections of the 
   anti-retaliation provision apply to an employee without requiring proof 
   that the employer was acting in concert with the customer to defraud the 
   government or acting in concert with the customer to orchestrate the 
   retaliation; challenges to evidentiary rulings rejected; argument that 
   defendant was entitled to a new trial based on the trial court's refusal 
   to give its proposed jury instruction on attorney-client privilege 
   rejected; whether the statute mandates an employee's reinstatement or 
   leaves the matter to the district court's discretion, the district court 
   did not err in ordering plaintiff's reinstatement; district court did not 
   err in denying defendant's request to remit plaintiff's back pay award; 
   the jury's award of $568,000 for emotional distress was excessive as a 
   matter of law given the extent and duration of plaintiff's distress, and 
   plaintiff is given the option of accepting a remittitur of $300,000 or a 
   new trial on the issue.