Judge Doubles Damage Award to Fired Whistle-Blower

A judge on Wednesday doubled a $492,000 judgment awarded last month to a whistle-blower who was fired by the Los Angeles County Office of Education after he revealed that falsified data was used to justify the purchase of a multimillion-dollar computer system.

Norwalk Superior Court Judge Daniel Solis Pratt said he was compelled by law to increase the award to Allen M. Weil, although he said he believed that the former computer analyst had already been sufficiently compensated.

In granting Weil $984,000, Pratt called the law a “notice to agencies that if you (fire a whistle-blower), you are going to be punished. It is mandatory.”

Under the state’s false claim act, a whistle-blower who has suffered a loss of income as a result of his actions is entitled to double the amount awarded for lost wages. The statute was enacted in 1991.

In addition to the $492,000 awarded by a jury to Weil for lost wages at last month’s hearing, he also received $250,000 for emotional damages.

During the two-week trial in June, Weil’s attorneys argued that county officials asked the analyst to provide false information to the school board, showing that a new computer was needed. When Weil refused, the administrators prepared the materials with the assistance of a computer salesman from Bull HN Information Systems, according to court documents. The school board eventually approved the purchase of an $8.6-million computer system from the company. The system processes payrolls for most public school districts in the county.

The jury concluded that the county education office and three top administrators harassed Weil and unfairly discriminated against him until he was laid off in March, 1993.

Attorneys for the county, however, said Weil was laid off because of budget cuts. Weil could have applied for another available position, they said, and probably would have been hired. Weil was characterized at the trial as a vindictive malcontent.

On Wednesday, Weil, 63, said he was pleased with the judge’s decision.

“I didn’t go through all of this for the money,” he said. “I did it because I am a conscientious employee and taxpayer who wants to make sure our tax money is spent properly.”

Pratt delayed a decision on whether the education office should pay Weil’s attorney’s fees. Attorneys for the county have said they plan to appeal.