Legal Update: Major National Law Firm Defends Dissolved Shell in Federal IRS Whistleblower Retaliation Case

The Department of Labor Taxpayer First Act case Hollingsworth v. DRVM LLC et al, continues to develop in unusual ways, as Respondent DRVM LLC—represented by Fisher Phillips LLP, one of the largest employment-defense firms in the United States—has now filed its Initial Disclosures.

What stands out is not simply who is defending the case, but how they are defending it.

1. Fisher Phillips Identifies “CFO” of DRVM: Steven D. Dickert

In its disclosures, Fisher Phillips formally designates Steven D. Dickert as the Chief Financial Officer of DRVM LLC and states he may be contacted through their firm.

This would suggest DRVM is a functioning company with an executive team.

Yet DRVM:

• has been dissolved or revoked in multiple jurisdictions,

• lacks a conventional operational footprint,

• and appears publicly as a shell company used for payroll and onboarding.

Anyone who has followed the DRVM structure immediately recognizes why this identification is noteworthy.

2. A Major National Firm Narrowly Frames a Congressional Whistleblower Case

Despite representing a Respondent in a congressionally created IRS whistleblower retaliation proceeding, Fisher Phillips continues to frame the dispute as:

• a simple termination matter,

• concerning events from December 2024,

• with no connection to IRS activity.

This framing ignores the core protection of the Taxpayer First Act:

Retaliation begins once the IRS is notified and assigns claim numbers.

That occurred on April 28, 2025.

The conduct alleged by the complainant—including arbitration filings, federal court maneuvers, online suppression, and procedural actions—occurred after the IRS became involved.

Yet none of this appears in the Respondent’s description of the case.

3. Fisher Phillips Acknowledges the July 1 Payment but Not Its Context

Respondent lists as an exhibit:

• “Respondent’s proof of payment of the disputed underlying penalty.”

This refers to the July 1 payment made mid-arbitration—an undisclosed deposit that has since been described differently in different forums.

Respondent treats the payment as routine wage resolution.

But the timing tells a different story:

• It occurred 64 days after IRS claim numbers were issued,

• during active arbitration,

• with no settlement agreement,

• and reported inconsistently across legal venues.

This payment appears in Respondent’s evidence list, but its post-IRS timing—critical under the statute—is omitted entirely from their narrative.

4. The Most Striking Element: Ignoring the Statute They’re Litigating Under

The Taxpayer First Act was created by Congress specifically to prevent corporations from:

• punishing IRS whistleblowers,

• hiding behind intermediary entities, or

• using litigation pressure to silence reporting.

Yet Fisher Phillips’ disclosures:

• do not mention the IRS claim numbers,

• do not address any events after the IRS was notified,

• do not acknowledge statutory whistleblower protections,

• and instead rely entirely on pre-IRS employment issues.

This means one of the largest employment-defense firms in the country is:

Defending a revoked shell entity in a congressionally mandated whistleblower-retaliation case… while disregarding the very protections Congress enacted.

And in doing so, they are continuing the same retaliatory conduct alleged to have occurred across arbitration and federal court—now inside the federal whistleblower proceeding itself.

5. A Clear Contrast Between the Parties

Petitioner’s disclosures present:

• IRS and SEC submissions,

• post–April 28 retaliation,

• events across arbitration, federal court, and online platforms,

• entity reactivations and multi-state filings,

• the July 1 payment timeline, and

• evidence of escalating conduct tied directly to protected activity.

Respondent’s disclosures present:

• termination documents,

• wage statements,

• OSHA’s dismissal letter,

• and a narrow pre-IRS record.

The contrast is unmistakable:

Only one side is treating this like a Taxpayer First Act case.

6. Next Steps

With both parties’ initial disclosures now served under 29 C.F.R. § 18.50, the matter will proceed to an Administrative Law Judge.

The issues now squarely before the tribunal include:

• whether Respondent can rely on a dissolved shell to defend a federal whistleblower case,

• whether a major national firm can continue ignoring the statutory timeline, and

• whether post-IRS conduct—across multiple forums—constitutes retaliation under the Taxpayer First Act.

There is more developing behind the scenes that I cannot discuss just yet, but what is already public speaks for itself. Fisher Phillips’ attempt to reframe a federal Taxpayer First Act proceeding as a routine termination dispute—while omitting post-IRS retaliation, statutory timelines, and federally protected conduct—reflects a broader pattern seen in arbitration, in federal court, and now in a congressionally mandated whistleblower forum.

But the deeper concern is not merely a litigation strategy. It is that one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, operating through subsidiaries and shell entities, has been able to maneuver through multiple legal venues while disregarding the whistleblower protections Congress enacted to safeguard IRS reporting. When a corporation of this scale can repeatedly bypass those protections without institution-level correction, it raises a fundamental question about the reliability of the federal safeguards the public is told will protect them.

If statutory whistleblower protections can be treated as optional by companies with vast resources and complex entity structures, then the public is justified in asking what protections remain meaningful at all.

For transparency, I’m releasing the Initial Disclosures so anyone following this can review the record as it develops. The case is now entering a phase where the issues become clearer, the stakes become higher, and the consequences become significantly more serious.