Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel. Kirk
131 S. Ct. 1885
| SCOTUS | 2011Background
- The FCA public disclosure bar §3730(e)(4)(A) generally precludes qui tam suits based on public disclosures from specified sources.
- Kirk asserted Schindler submitted hundreds of false VE VRAA claims and pointed to DOL FOIA responses as supporting records.
- DOL FOIA responses to Kirk’s wife identified years with no VETS-100 filings and provided copies for other years.
- District Court dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, but the Second Circuit vacated and remanded, questioning whether FOIA responses are reports.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide if a FOIA response constitutes a 'report' under the FCA’s public disclosure bar.
- The Court ultimately held that a federal agency’s written FOIA responses, with accompanying records, are reports under the bar.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a FOIA response qualify as a 'report' under the FCA? | Kirk argued FOIA responses are not reports. | Schindler argued the term 'report' should be read narrowly. | Yes, FOIA responses are reports. |
| Should 'report' be read narrowly or in ordinary broad sense under the statute? | Kirk urged a broader interpretation aligned with the text. | Schindler urged a narrower interpretation based on surrounding words. | Ordinary broad meaning governs; not narrowed by noscitur a sociis. |
| Does extending the public disclosure bar to FOIA responses affect coercive whistleblower protections or implications on remand? | Kirk claimed broad extension could chill whistleblowing and vary by source. | Schindler contended such extension would harmonize with the statute's scope. | Remand to resolve whether Kirk’s suit is based on disclosures in those reports. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange, 270 U.S. 593 (1926) (transactions broad meaning)
- Marcus v. Hess, 317 U.S. 537 (1943) (parasitic qui tam doctrine)
- Mistick PBT v. Housing Auth. of Pittsburgh, 186 F.3d 376 (3d Cir. 1999) (public disclosure bar interpretation)
- Haight v. Catholic Healthcare West, 445 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2006) (FOIA disclosures and reports)
- U.S. ex rel. Duxbury v. Ortho Biotech Prods., L.P., 579 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2009) (original source and public disclosure context)