Dennis Glynn v. EDO Corporation
2013 WL 1150523
4th Cir.2013Background
- Glynn, an IST engineer, raised temperature-related performance concerns about MMBJs starting in 2004.
- Glynn advocated testing, better specifications, and recalls; IST management resisted specifications, citing operating 'on the fly'.
- In 2005–2006 Glynn suggested recalls and informed IST managers and government contacts of potential risks.
- Glynn reported concerns to government channels in Sept. 2006; internal IST response differed; concerns included QA and billing issues.
- Testing in Oct. 2006 showed some unit issues but system-level performance generally met standards; government testing did not confirm a fatal flaw.
- Glynn was terminated Dec. 2006; he sued in 2007 under FCA retaliation, which the district court granted summary judgment for IST.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Glynn engaged in protected activity under FCA | Glynn investigated potential fraud and reported risks. | Temperature issues were product improvement, not protected activity. | Not protected activity; no viable FCA action. |
| Whether false certification regarding QA was material | Glynn showed IST lacked a QA plan or falsified compliance. | QA issues were administrative; not material to payment. | False QA certification not material to government payments. |
| Whether Glynn initiated a government investigation | Glynn's disclosures triggered government inquiry into IST. | Investigation lack of distinct possibility of FCA action. | No distinct possibility of viable FCA action; not protected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mann v. Heckler Koch Defense, Inc., 630 F.3d 338 (4th Cir. 2010) (protective scope of FCA retaliation for investigations prior to qui tam)
- Yesudian v. Howard Univ., 153 F.3d 731 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (protected activity extends to investigations showing potential fraud)
- Eberhardt v. Integrated Design & Const., Inc., 167 F.3d 861 (4th Cir. 1999) (distinct possibility standard for protected activity)
- Zahodnick v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp., 135 F.3d 911 (4th Cir. 1997) (elements of FCA retaliation claim)
- Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 352 F.3d 908 (4th Cir. 2003) (materiality within FCA claims; false certification context)
- Owens v. First Kuwaiti Gen. Trading Co., 612 F.3d 724 (4th Cir. 2010) (contractual breach not automatically FCA action; materiality inquiry)