Mann v. Heckler & Koch Defense, Inc.
630 F.3d 338
4th Cir.2010Background
- Mann, a HKD employee, alleged FCA retaliation for opposing HKD's bid to defraud the United States in a Secret Service rifle contract.
- HKD bid involved HK-416 with two nonconforming components (ambilevers and two-stage match triggers) not available at submission.
- HKD submitted the bid anyway, stating it could supply missing components if successful.
- Mann voiced disapproval of bid conduct and began investigating whether HKD violated contracting regulations.
- HKD management halted internal checks and launched a formal investigation; Mann was placed on leave and later terminated.
- District court granted summary judgment for HKD, concluding no falsity or fraud against the government and thus no FCA protection; Mann appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mann engaged in protected activity under §3730(h). | Mann argues his opposition/investigation protected by FCA. | HKD contends there was no fraud; actions not within FCA scope. | Not protected because no fraud or viable FCA action. |
| Whether the distinct possibility standard applies from the employee’s perspective. | Employee perspective should govern protected activity. | Court should use employee-known facts; perspective affects interpretation. | Court uses employee perspective for protected activity. |
| Whether filing a retaliation claim itself can constitute protected activity. | Filing §3730(h) claim should be protected. | Filing cannot automatically qualify as protected activity. | Filing retaliation claim does not automatically confer protection; must show distinct possibility of fraud. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham County Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 545 U.S. 409 (U.S. 2005) (interprets 'under this section' and limits protection to §3730(a)/(b) context)
- Eberhardt v. Integrated Design & Constr., Inc., 167 F.3d 861 (4th Cir. 1999) (establishes distinct possibility standard for protected activity)
- Yesudian v. Howard Univ., 153 F.3d 731 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (explains 'distinct possibility' concept and protection scope)
- Neal v. Honeywell Inc., 33 F.3d 860 (7th Cir. 1994) (protects against 'distinct possibility' of FCA action; later abrogated in part by Graham County)
- Hopper v. Anton, 91 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir. 1996) (limits retaliation protection to potential fraud scenarios)
- Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457 (U.S. 2007) (FCA scope and false/fraudulent claims standard)