Sharma v. District of Columbia
881 F. Supp. 2d 138
D.D.C.2012Background
- Sharma, a former Senior Contract Specialist for DC OCP, sues DC for retaliation under DCWPA, FCA, Title VII, and ADEA.
- Plaintiff alleges he resisted fraudulent contracts and filed whistleblower complaints between 2005 and 2009.
- EEOC complaint filed October 18, 2006; amended several times through 2009; applied for two higher positions in 2007 but was not interviewed or selected.
- In 2009, OCP reorganization moved contracting group to OPM; Sharma received a May 18, 2009 RIF notice and was terminated June 19, 2009.
- Sharma filed whistleblower and RIF complaints with DC IG; appealed to OEA, withdrew in 2010, and OEA dismissed in 2010.
- EEOC determination in 2010 favorable on some Title VII and ADEA claims; DOJ referred but declined to sue; Sharma received a Right-To-Sue letter in 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does FCA retaliation require Rule 9(b) fraud pleading? | Sharma argues whistleblower retaliation claims are exempt from 9(b) pleading and need only general pleading. | District contends FCA retaliation claims must allege a false or fraudulent claim with 9(b) specificity. | No 9(b) for retaliation; but claim fails for lack of presentment of a false claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kowal v. MCI Communications Corp., 16 F.3d 1271 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (court requires factual allegations to support inferences, not mere conjecture)
- Martin-Baker Aircraft Co., 389 F.3d 1251 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (whistleblower retaliation claims are not constrained by fraud pleading standards)
- Aktieselskabet AF 21. November 2001 v. Fame Jeans Inc., 525 F.3d 8 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (Waiver of strict pleading requirements for certain retaliation claims)
- Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776 (4th Cir. 1999) (central question is whether a false or fraudulent claim was presented)
- U.S. ex rel. Yesudian v. Howard Univ., 153 F.3d 731 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (plaintiff must show protected activity and that retaliation was motivated by it)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court 2007) (pleading requires plausible claims, not mere conclusory statements)