On August 26, 2022, the Third Circuit affirmed a grant of summary judgment in favor of an employer, holding that whistleblower retaliation protections in the False Claims Act did not protect an employee from being discharged for harassing a co-worker. Crosbie v. Highmark Inc., et al., No. 21-1641.
Background
On March 29, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida held that in order to engage in protected conduct under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), a plaintiff must specifically suspect that their employer has made a false claim for payment to the federal government; vague suspicions
On March 31, 2021, the Sixth Circuit addressed an issue of first impression in the circuit, holding that the False Claims Act’s (“FCA”) whistleblower protection provisions protect former employees from post-employment retaliation. United States, ex rel. Felten v. William Beaumont Hospital, No. 20-1002.
Background
Plaintiff was employed as a
In an unusual and eye-catching case, a hospital facing a whistleblower lawsuit from a former senior executive under the False Claims Act (“FCA”) has brought suit against that individual, alleging he breached his fiduciary duty by failing to report the unlawful conduct internally and instead using that information as the
On February 28, 2019, a Los Angeles jury issued a verdict of $1.5 million in damages to a former employee who alleged his employer retaliated against him for reporting misconduct in violation of the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h), the Defense Contractor Whistleblower Protection Act (“DCWPA”), 10
On January 15, 2019, the First Circuit ruled that a plaintiff adequately alleges protected activity under the FCA whistleblower protection provision where he asserts that he reported concerns about his employer’s conduct that could reasonably lead to a viable FCA action. Guilfoile v. Shields, Sr., No. 17-1610.
Background
Plaintiff,
On October 18, 2017, a federal district judge in Alaska ordered a former employee to pay nearly $170,000 of his ex-employer’s legal fees as sanction for removing nine attorney-client privileged documents prior to his termination. The ruling was based on a decision this summer that the former employee willfully and
On April 12, 2017, the Third Circuit partially revived a former in-house attorney’s whistleblower retaliation lawsuit against his previous employer. Danon v. Vanguard Group, Inc., No. 16-cv-2881.
Plaintiff, a former in-house tax lawyer, previously raised retaliation claims against the Company in New York State Court under the New York False Claims Act, alleging he was discharged in retaliation for informing senior employees of his belief that the Company was violating certain tax and corporate laws. The state court dismissed the case based on the plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate that the Company knew he was involved in any protected conduct at the time of his termination. Plaintiff then filed suit against the Company in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging whistleblower retaliation in violation of SOX, Dodd-Frank, and the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law. His claims again were dismissed because the court determined he was precluded from asserting the Company’s knowledge of his allegedly protected conduct (we previously wrote about the SEC’s amicus brief to the district court in support of the plaintiff’s arguments here).
The Seventh Circuit recently issued a decision interpreting the anti-retaliation provisions 
of the False Claims Act (FCA). The decision provides important clarifications about how courts may interpret recent amendments to this provision. Like a recent decision by the Fourth Circuit, the Seventh Circuit finds that courts may inquire whether the employee’s underlying complaint of FCA fraud was objectively and subjectively reasonable. Using that standard, the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of the whistleblower’s claim on a motion for summary judgment.
The Fourth Circuit recently issued a decision interpreting the anti-retaliation provision of the False Claims Act (FCA). The decision provides important clarification about how courts may interpret 2009 and 2010 amendments to the anti-retaliation provision. Specifically, it finds that courts may inquire whether the employee’s underlying complaint of FCA fraud is objectively and subjectively reasonable.