The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed a district court's dismissal of a retaliation claim under the False Claims Act (FCA) as to several individual defendants.
In Howell v. Town of Ball, a Ball, Louisiana police officer, Howell, sued the town and several town officials for employment retaliation in violation of the FCA (among other claims). The officials moved to dismiss, arguing that the FCA creates a cause of action only against a plaintiff's employer. The district court agreed, citing the subsection of the FCA that creates a cause of action for those "discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment . . ." 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) (emphasis added).
On appeal, Howell argued that a 2009 amendment to the FCA (which removed the reference to "employer" in § 3730(h)) "indicate[d] a legislative intent to broaden the class of viable defendants." In a July 1 decision, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit disagreed with Howell, holding that "the reference to an 'employer' was deleted to account for the broadening of the class of FCA plaintiffs to include 'contractors' and 'agents,' not to provide liability for individual, non-employer defendants."
In sum, FCA plaintiffs can only bring retaliation actions against their actual employers, notwithstanding the role that other non-employer individuals may have had in allegedly retaliatory activity.
Fifth Circuit Holds FCA Amendment Does Not Expand Retaliation Liability Beyond Employers
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.