Kalch v. Raytheon Technical Services Company, LLC, 6:16-cv-01529

Background

Kalch, a contractor employed by Raytheon Technical Services Company (RTSC) in Afghanistan from June 2012 to January 2014, alleged he observed and reported billing fraud and other contract violations by co-workers to his on-site supervisor, Tremayne Smith.
Kalch recorded a December 18, 2013 conversation with Smith and repeatedly raised concerns to Smith and others; coworkers complained Kalch created a hostile work environment.
The Army submitted two "loss-of-confidence" memoranda in December 2013 recommending Kalch’s removal; Raytheon removed him from the field, investigated, and found he violated security policy (for recording) and created a hostile work environment.
Raytheon’s VP of Human Resources, Paul Clegg, approved termination effective January 17, 2014.
Kalch sued Raytheon and RTSC (later merged into Raytheon) alleging (1) retaliation under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h), and (2) wrongful discharge under Missouri law; the case was transferred to the Middle District of Florida.
The Court granted Raytheon summary judgment on both counts as to Raytheon Company (RTSC did not join the motion), leaving the action pending only against RTSC.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kalch engaged in protected FCA activity	Kalch contends confronting Smith and reporting suspected billing fraud are protected whistleblowing acts under § 3730(h)	Raytheon disputed causation but did not deny the reporting as protected conduct	Court: Kalch did engage in protected conduct (reporting suspected fraud to supervisor).
Whether Raytheon took adverse action because of protected conduct (causation under FCA)	Kalch argues his termination resulted from retaliation for his reports	Raytheon argues decision-maker Clegg lacked knowledge of Kalch’s complaints; no evidence Clegg knew; cat’s-paw theory not applicable	Court: No causal link—no evidence decision-maker knew of protected activity; summary judgment for Raytheon on FCA count.
Whether Missouri wrongful-discharge law applies after venue transfer	Kalch relies on Missouri law for wrongful-discharge claim	Raytheon argued Florida law applies because case sits in Florida	Court: Van Dusen principle applies; transferee court must apply the law that would have applied in the transferor forum—Missouri law applies.
Whether Kalch’s conduct satisfies Missouri wrongful-discharge public-policy exception	Kalch asserts he reported serious misconduct violating law/policy	Raytheon points to DoD investigation finding Kalch’s belief unreasonable and lack of evidence of legal violations	Court: Raytheon met its burden; Kalch failed to rebut absence of evidence that actual legal violations occurred; summary judgment for Raytheon on wrongful-discharge count.

Key Cases Cited

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment genuine-dispute standard)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (moving party’s initial burden on summary judgment)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmovant must show affirmative evidence of genuine dispute)
Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (transferor-law rule for venue transfers)
Sims v. MVM, Inc., 704 F.3d 1327 (Eleventh Circuit: "cat’s paw" theory not applicable where statute requires but-for causation)
Reynolds v. Winn-Dixie Raleigh Inc., [citation="620 F. App'x 785"] (Eleventh Circuit: decisionmaker must know of protected conduct for FCA causation)
Keveney v. Mo. Military Acad., 304 S.W.3d 98 (Mo. en banc: Missouri wrongful-discharge public-policy exception)
Arthurs v. Global TPA LLC, 208 F. Supp. 3d 1260 (discussion of FCA anti-retaliation protection for non-litigation reporting)