A recently filed whistleblower suit alleges that Mead Johnson, a nutrition division of Bristol-Myers Squibb, states that a woman was the target of the employer retaliation when she chose to speak up about safety issues regarding the manufacturer of infant formula.

Plaintiff Linda O’Risky was the former Global Product Compliance Director for Mead Johnson, and worked with the company from 1990 until 2015.

“Over the course of 2015, Ms. O’Risky was marginalized and eventually terminated after she began raising and escalating concerns about serious safety issues related to the defects in the manufacturer of Mead Johnson’s ready-to-use-infant formula (‘RTU’), as well as a culture and organizational structure that increasingly prioritize profits over safety and compliance,” the whistleblower suit states.

Earlier in 2015, the plaintiff states that the RTU formula began showing signs that it had defective seals, which could have caused bacterial contamination during storage and shipping, potentially leading to infant illness.

O’Risky states that she brought her concerns to the attention of her superiors and to others outside of her chain of command, but received no response.

O’Risky said that Mead Johnson finally began an investigation, “but the individuals assigned to investigate the problem falsely claimed that a defective seal did not constitute a food safety or FDA compliance problem, since any spoilage resulting from a defective seal would be obvious to a consumer.”

In her capacity, Ms. O’Risky stated that having a defective seal could lead to product contamination and “that FDA regulations are clear that defective processes and incidents of spoilage in the market must be reported to regulators, particularly for low-acid thermally processed foods and hermetically sealed containers and for infant formula.”

“In the meantime, the attempt to whitewash and downplay the problem persisted,” the whistleblower suit states. “It became clear that senior management’s hope was that the defective products would make their way through the marketplace without any major incidents of harm to consumers and without having to fulfill their legal obligations to report the known problem.”

O’Risky continued to report her concerns, and even though she did so anonymously, because her stance on the safety of the RTU was well-known, they assumed that she had made the complaint.

“As a direct and proximate result of Ms. O’Risky’s conscientious reporting and protected activity about these issues, her managers began excluding her from meetings, withholding critical information from her, and impeding her ability to do her job,” the whistleblower suit claims.

She alleges, “They ultimately targeted her for termination through a reduction in force (‘RIF’), claiming it was a necessary part of Mead Johnson’s Fuel for Growth initiative, which was to involve cost-cutting and layoffs.”

The whistleblower suit goes on to say that the way O’Risky was terminated was not like the process of how others were terminated when they were laid off.

The company began by “immediately confiscating her computer, requiring her to leave the premises by noon and escorting her out of the building.” She states these actions were “clearly retaliatory and evidenced a concern about the issues she raised.”

The plaintiff has raised several counts against Mead Johnson including retaliation in violation of the Food Safety Modernization Act, retaliation in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, retaliation in violation of the Dodd-Frank Act, and retaliatory discharge in violation of the public policy of the state of Illinois.

She is seeking declarative, injunctive and monetary relief. She has asked to be reinstated to her former position or an equivalent position, or to be awarded pay in lieu of reinstatement.

She is asking for double the amount of back pay and benefits, compensatory damages for the reputational harm and pain she has suffered, punitive damages for Mead Johnson’s conduct, attorneys’ fees and costs and any additional relief deemed just and proper by the Court.

The Whistleblower Suit is Case No. 1:17-cv-01046, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.