SHARE

November 01, 2022

Jury Finds Plaintiff Failed to Prove He Engaged in Activity Covered by False Claims Act

You've Reached Your
Free Article Limit This Month
Register for free to get unlimited access to all Law.com OnPractice content.
Register Now

Finding the plaintiff did not meet his burden of proving he was terminated in retaliation for engaging in False Claims Act (FCA)-protected activity, a jury returned a verdict for the former employer, a subsidiary of a publicly traded life sciences company.

Jackson Lewis attorneys Donny English, Kathleen McGinley, and Liane Kozik defended the employer in the three-week jury trial.

Background

A sales manager alleged that he was terminated in retaliation for making a complaint under the FCA. The employer maintained that the plaintiff did not make a FCA complaint and he was terminated due to poor sales performance after being suspended by two hospital systems for misconduct.

In order for the plaintiff to prevail on his FCA retaliation claim, he had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that:

  1. He engaged in FCA-protected activity designed to prevent one or more current or future FCA violations;
  2. The decisionmaker(s) in his termination knew about the FCA-protected activity; and
  3. He was terminated because of the FCA-protected activity.

Jury Verdict

In delivering its verdict after deliberating for nearly two days, the Maryland  jury found that the plaintiff did not meet his burden on the first element of the claim — whether he engaged in FCA-protected activity designed to stop a current or future violation of the FCA.

The defense emphasized that whether the plaintiff engaged in FCA-protected activity was not subject to many factual disputes. The jury heard and saw evidence that the plaintiff's complaint did not relate to any current or future false claim to the government for payment, as required by the FCA, since he reported only conduct from five years prior to his complaint. The jury also heard evidence that the plaintiff's motive for the complaint was to obtain a payout from the employer, rather than to report or prevent a current or future violation of the FCA. Additionally, the jury heard evidence that the plaintiff's complaint related solely to internal compliance and training issues, not to any false claim to the government for payment.

Both sides also presented evidence about the last two elements — whether any decisionmaker in the plaintiff's termination knew about his complaint and whether he was terminated because of his complaint.

Takeaways

Often, whether a plaintiff engaged in protected activity is largely unchallenged or even is stipulated to by the time a case gets to trial. However, an experienced trial team carefully analyzing all possible avenues for success will seek to narrow trial issues that can confuse, craft practical jury instructions that anticipate confusing legal issues, eliminate evidentiary issues to ensure admission of key evidence, and develop key themes through discovery and trial that will resonate with the jury.

Please contact a member of the Trial and Appeals Practice Group with any questions.


©2022 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Focused on labor and employment law since 1958, Jackson Lewis P.C.'s 950+ attorneys located in major cities nationwide consistently identify and respond to new ways workplace law intersects business. We help employers develop proactive strategies, strong policies and business-oriented solutions to cultivate high-functioning workforces that are engaged, stable and diverse, and share our clients' goals to emphasize inclusivity and respect for the contribution of every employee. For more information, visit https://www.jacksonlewis.com.

ALM expressly disclaims any express or implied warranty regarding the OnPractice Content, including any implied warranty that the OnPractice Content is accurate, has been corrected or is otherwise free from errors.

More From Jackson Lewis P.C.

2022 New York Roundup: State, City Legislative and Related Developments

By Richard I. Greenberg Jackson Lewis P.C. January 30 , 2023

In 2022, New York State and New York City enacted many new workplace laws, creating additional obligations for employers.

U.S. Supreme Court Dismisses as 'Improvidently Granted' Case on Scope of Attorney-Client Privilege

By Stephanie L. Adler-Paindiris Jackson Lewis P.C. January 30 , 2023

In a per curiam opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court has dismissed the writ of certiorari granted in In re: Grand Jury, No. 21-1397, writing only that it was “improvidently granted.”

District of Columbia Council Delays Effective Date of Act Eliminating Tip Credit to May 2023

By Alyson J. Guyan Jackson Lewis P.C. January 25 , 2023

The District of Columbia Council has postponed the first effective date of voter Initiative 82, the “Tip Credit Elimination Act,” from January 1, 2023, to May 1, 2023.

More From Litigation

U.S. Supreme Court Dismisses as 'Improvidently Granted' Case on Scope of Attorney-Client Privilege

By Stephanie L. Adler-Paindiris Jackson Lewis P.C. January 30 , 2023

In a per curiam opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court has dismissed the writ of certiorari granted in In re: Grand Jury, No. 21-1397, writing only that it was “improvidently granted.”

This Week in 340B: January 17 - 23, 2023

By Emily Jane Cook McDermott Will & Emery January 26 , 2023

This weekly series provides brief summaries to help you stay in the know on how 340B cases are developing across the country.

Your Gang Did What!? No Matter—No Forfeiture of IP

By Kat Lynch McDermott Will & Emery January 26 , 2023

In a unique case blending intellectual property and criminal law, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed that a district court properly exercised jurisdiction over a motorcycle club and upheld the lower court’s finding that the club did not have to forfeit its collective membership marks.

Featured Stories
Closeclose
Search
Menu

Working...