Share:
The relator contended he was terminated for trying to prevent an FCA violation. The defendant said it had simply laid the relator off. The Fourth Circuit sided with the defendant, holding the relator had not been able to show the termination was pretextual.
United States ex rel. Dillard v. Fluor Corporation, Inc., COFC No. 22-1450
- Claim – The relator brought a qui tam action against a government contractor. As part of the suit, the relator alleged he had been fired in violation of the FCA’s anti-retaliation provision.
- Retaliation Standard – A plaintiff alleging FCA retaliation must make a prima facie showing that they engaged in protected conduct by acting to prevent an FCA violation and that their employer fired them for engaging in the protected conduct. The burden then shifts to the defendant to show a legitimate non-retaliatory reason for the termination. The burden shifts back to the plaintiff to rebut the employer.
- Relator Didn’t Rebut Employer’s Evidence – The defendant argued that it terminated the relator due to a corporate realignment resulting in a reduction in force. The Fourth Circuit found the relator had not shown the reduction in force was pretextual.
—Case summary by Craig LaChance, Senior Editor
Share:
