The district court granted in part the defendant’s motion to dismiss a qui tam case alleging unlawful retaliation under the False Claim Act, finding that the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act specifically excluded Amtrak from liability under the FCA. However, the court found the plaintiff had sufficiently pled claims of a hostile work environment, retaliation, and unlawful termination under the D.C. Human Rights Act, based on both his disability and various protected activities.
Plaintiff Gary Talbot sued Amtrak for unlawful retaliation under the False Claims Act; violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act; and related causes of action under the D.C. Human Rights Act. Amtrak moved to dismiss.
Beginning in 2011, Talbot was employed as the program director for Amtrak’s Americans With Disabilities Act program, which assessed Amtrak’s efforts to accommodate passengers with disabilities. Based on his belief that Amtrak was misusing and mis-appropriating federal funds earmarked for ADA projects, Talbot made several disclosures concerning what he viewed as the mismanagement of ADA resources to various internal and external entities, including to the Department of Transportation, lawmakers, and Amtrak’s OIG. On various occasions, including as early as 2011, Mr. Talbot refused to certify that Amtrak was appropriately spending its ADA funding on ADA projects.
Talbot alleged that his efforts resulted in demotion and harassment, and that executives ignored his input and concerns. He also alleged that Amtrak management was dismissive of his concerns because his own disability allegedly rendered him biased. Eventually Talbot was given a poor performance assessment and put on a performance improvement plan. In 2016, he was secretly demoted from the ADA Program manager position, and he received another poor assessment and improvement plan. In 2017, Amtrak took away Talbot’s private office and instead relocated him to a cubicle. In response to his performance improvement plan, Talbot reiterated his concerns about Amtrak’s ADA compliance and possible misuse of ADA funds.
Also in September 2017, Talbot filed a qui tam complaint and lodged his complaint with the Department of Justice. According to Talbot, around this time Amtrak began pressuring him to accept a voluntary separation incentive package. In December 2017, Talbot received a positive performance evaluation. However, due to some health concerns, he went on FLMA leave. During his leave, Talbot was terminated.
The government declined to intervene and the complaint proceeded to court. After a number of procedural matters, Amtrak moved to dismiss.
In its motion, Amtrak argued that it cannot be sued under the FCA because the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 specifically excluded Amtrak from the law’s coverage. In response, Talbot argued the FCA should be construed broadly since its purpose is to protect the funds and property of the government from fraudulent claims.
The court agreed Amtrak was excluded from the FCA, citing multiple prior cases acknowledging that the ARAA had carved out an exception for Amtrak. Accordingly, the court dismissed Talbot’s claims for FCA retaliation.
However, the court found that Talbot had pled plausible claims of discrimination on the basis of a disability, retaliation, and a hostile work environment under the DC Human Rights Act. While some claims were time-barred because Talbot did not file within one year of their occurrence or discovery of their occurrence, some acts, including Talbot’s termination, were within the statute of limitations. The court found Talbot had sufficiently pled that the was terminated both because of his disability and because he participated in activity protected by the DCHRA.
