Christian Kreipke v. Wayne State University
807 F.3d 768
6th Cir.2015Background
- Dr. Christian Kreipke, a former Wayne State University (WSU) assistant professor, filed a qui tam False Claims Act (FCA) action alleging WSU inflated federal research grant funding and terminated him for complaining and refusing to participate.
- The United States declined to intervene; Kreipke then filed a First Amended Complaint asserting multiple FCA counts, a state-law retaliatory discharge claim (later voluntarily dismissed), and defamation against WSU and related actors.
- WSU moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing it is not a “person” under the FCA and is entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity; it also challenged pleading sufficiency under Rule 9(b) and asserted GTLA defenses.
- The district court dismissed all claims against WSU, holding WSU is an arm of the State of Michigan (thus not a “person” under the FCA) and entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity; it denied leave to amend as futile and because Kreipke failed to file a formal motion.
- On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed, adopting the arm-of-the-state test to determine FCA personhood and applying Ernst v. Rising factors to find WSU an arm of the state; it also affirmed dismissal of the defamation claim on immunity grounds and found proposed amendments futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WSU is a “person” under the FCA | Kreipke: WSU can be sued under the FCA for alleged fraud | WSU: as a public university/arm of the state, WSU is not a “person” under the FCA | Court: Adopt arm-of-the-state Eleventh Amendment test; WSU is an arm of the state and thus not a “person” under the FCA (affirmed) |
| Whether WSU is entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity | Kreipke: WSU not immune because of its operational independence and funding mix | WSU: created/maintained by Michigan, judgments paid from state revenues, thus entitled to immunity | Court: Ernst factors weigh in favor of arm-of-the-state; Eleventh Amendment immunity applies (affirmed) |
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying leave to amend | Kreipke: requested to add Board of Governors and President as defendants and to add detail | WSU: amendment would be futile; original request procedurally deficient | Court: Denial affirmed as amendment would be futile (claims against Board/President fail) |
| Viability of defamation claim against university president (and state-law immunity) | Kreipke: President not immune for intentional torts under GTLA | WSU: President entitled to immunity under Michigan law (Ross/Odom framework) | Court: President’s statements were within scope and discretionary; no plausible malice alleged; immunity applies — claim futile (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765 (Sup. Ct. 2000) (FCA personhood excludes states/state agencies; scope parallels Eleventh Amendment inquiry)
- Cook County v. United States ex rel. Chandler, 538 U.S. 119 (Sup. Ct. 2003) (local governments and municipalities are persons under the FCA)
- Ernst v. Rising, 427 F.3d 351 (6th Cir. 2005) (four-factor arm-of-the-state test for Eleventh Amendment analysis)
- Estate of Ritter v. University of Michigan, 851 F.2d 846 (6th Cir. 1988) (University of Michigan held to be an arm of the state)
- Hutsell v. Sayre, 5 F.3d 996 (6th Cir. 1993) (higher education is a traditional governmental function)
- Kovats v. Rutgers, 822 F.2d 1303 (3d Cir. 1987) (analysis of university arm-of-the-state status; distinguished on facts)