889 F.3d 872
7th Cir.2018Background
- Quinn Heath applied to be an Indianapolis firefighter in Jan 2015 and passed written, oral, and physical tests, placing him on a ranked hiring list.
- Quinn's father, Rodney Heath, filed a qui tam suit under the False Claims Act alleging the Fire Department made false statements to obtain federal grant funds; Rodney worked as a backup arson investigator.
- After Rodney's suit, Department leadership was informed of federal interviews; Quinn alleges he was not hired in retaliation for his father’s protected activity.
- Two firefighter academy classes were hired in 2015 from the ranked list; Quinn (ranked at best 64th initially) was not selected for either class.
- The Department uses an 80/20 hiring rule (80% by rank, 20% discretionary) and awards discretionary preference markers for attributes (racial minority, female, college degree, fire experience, legacy). Quinn had only the legacy marker; he had college credit but no degree.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Department; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding no admissible evidence that Rodney’s qui tam suit was a motivating cause of Quinn’s non-hire.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3730(h) protects job applicants/prospective employees | § 3730(h)'s "employee" should cover applicants like Quinn | § 3730(h) does not extend to applicants | Court did not decide scope; assumed arguendo applicant coverage but resolved case on causation/evidence grounds |
| Causation standard for § 3730(h) retaliation (but-for vs. mixed-motive) | Fanslow supports mixed-motive (motivated at least in part) | Nassar suggests Title VII uses but-for; uncertainty whether § 3730(h) follows Nassar | Court noted uncertainty but held causation standard immaterial because no evidence under either standard that suit motivated hiring decision |
| Whether Quinn suffered adverse employment action under § 3730(h) as a non-hire | Non-hire is a retaliatory adverse action tied to Rodney's suit | Non-hire resulted from neutral ranking and selection rules, not retaliation | Court treated non-hire as the complained-of action but found no evidence linking it to retaliation |
| Whether record contains evidence allowing a reasonable jury to infer retaliation | Quinn points to temporal proximity and investigation of employees after suit | Dept. points to merit-based ranking, 80/20 rule, discretionary markers, and selections of higher-ranked/two-marker applicants | Held for Department: factual record shows Quinn was too low-ranked and discretionary picks all had more markers; no reasonable jury could find protected activity was a motivating factor |
Key Cases Cited
- Fanslow v. Chicago Mfg. Ctr., Inc., 384 F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 2004) (recognized mixed-motive proof for FCA retaliation)
- Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013) (Title VII retaliation requires but-for causation)
- United States ex rel. King v. Solvay Pharm., Inc., 871 F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 2017) (interpreting FCA to require but-for causation)