Court Refuses to Dismiss FCA Retaliation Suit Against Government Contractor

The plaintiff alleged that his employer, SAIC, demoted and fired him in retaliation for reporting security deficiencies and fraudulent practices. SAIC moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. But the court upheld the plaintiff’s FCA retaliation claim, determining that his whistleblowing activities were protected, and that SAIC was aware of those activities.

Marselles Jefferson v. Science Applications International Corp., D.D.C., No. 24-1692

• Background –  The plaintiff was employed as a cybersecurity professional at SAIC. During his employment, the plaintiff reported various serious security issues and fraudulent activities to management and U.S. Air Force personnel. SAIC demoted and terminated the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed suit against SAIC under the FCA’s whistleblower retaliation provision. SAIC moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
• Protected Activity – To prove a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must prove they engaged in protected activity under the FCA, that is, activity concerned with false or fraudulent claims submitted to the government.  Here, the court found the plaintiff had engaged in protected activity. The plaintiff’s numerous disclosures about fraud during meetings and in emails were sufficient to establish that he engaged in protected activity.
• Employer Awareness – An FCA retaliation claim also requires proof that the employee was discriminated against because of the protected activity. SAIC contested this second element, arguing that it was unaware the plaintiff was engaged in protected activity, because reporting security issues was part of the plaintiff’s job duties. The court dismissed this argument, reasoning that the plaintiff’s allegations went beyond the scope of his normal job duties, demonstrating that SAIC was aware of his whistleblowing activity due to his direct communications about the fraudulent practices. The court denied SAIC’s motion to dismiss the FCA retaliation claim.