Halasa v. ITT Educational Services, Inc., 690 F.3d 844

ITT Educational Services runs for-profit Technical Institutes and receives substantial federal funding via student aid.
Halasa began as College Director at the Lathrop Campus on March 9, 2009, during a campus remodeling with leadership vacancies.
Alleged campus misconduct included prohibited incentive-based recruiter pay, manipulated entrance exam scores, altered grades, and misreported graduate employment.
Halasa reported these potential FCA violations to his supervisor and other ITT officials to stop the improper practices.
ITT received ethics complaints about Halasa’s conduct, including social behavior at campus events, while noting the campus underperformed.
On September 9, 2009 ITT terminated Halasa; he contends the termination was retaliation for reporting FCA violations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Halasa proved retaliation under the FCA	Halasa argues he was fired for protected FCA conduct.	ITT contends Halasa was terminated for poor leadership and losing confidence in him.	Halasa failed to show causal link; decisionmakers lacked knowledge of protected conduct; summary judgment affirmed.
Whether the district court’s costs award was proper under Rule 26(b)(4)(E) versus § 1821	Halasa challenges the costs ruling on appeal.	ITT argues Rule 26(b)(4)(E) governs expert fees and supersedes § 1821 caps.	Rule 26(b)(4)(E) supersedes § 1821; district court’s costs award affirmed.

Brandon v. Anesthesia & Pain Mgmt. Assocs., 277 F.3d 936 (7th Cir. 2002) (protected conduct under FCA requires causation showing)
Village of Schaumburg (Chicago Reg’l Council of Carpentrers v. Village of Schaumburg), 644 F.3d 353 (7th Cir. 2011) (assists interpretation of protected conduct and causation standards)
Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244 (1992) (document filed within time can serve as notice of appeal)
Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437 (1987) (supersession of statute by later rule in cost-shifting context)
Collins v. Gorman, 96 F.3d 1057 (7th Cir. 1996) (designs balancing rules and statutes in fee-shifting)
Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 131 S. Ct. 1186 (2011) (cat’s paw theory and supervisor knowledge in liability)
Taniguchi v. Kan Pac. Saipan, Ltd., 132 S. Ct. 1997 (2012) (statutory interpretation of cost rules)
Haarhuis v. Kunnan Enter., Ltd., 177 F.3d 1007 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (limits on witness fees under § 1821 discussed)
Trepal v. Roadway Express, Inc., 266 F.3d 418 (6th Cir. 2001) (approaches to Rule 26 and § 1821 interaction)
Gwin v. American River Transp. Co., 482 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2007) (reasonableness standard for expert fees under Rule 26)
Henderson v. United States, 517 U.S. 654 (1996) (statutory interpretation and administrative costs context)
United States v. Microsoft, 165 F.3d 952 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (interpretation of rule and statute in context of precedence)
Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244 (1992) (timeliness and notice in appellate context)