Torres v. IAP Worldwide Services, Inc.
5:21-cv-00084
E.D.N.C.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs Estrella Torres and Tony Wheeler were employed by IAP Worldwide Services, Inc. (IAP) and its subsidiary, Readiness Management Support (RMS), on a U.S. Department of Defense contract in Afghanistan.
- Both were terminated in August 2018 after a series of incidents involving poor workplace conduct and a confrontation with NATO International Military Police, leading to IAP management's recommendation for their dismissal.
- Plaintiffs alleged they were fired in retaliation for raising concerns about fraud in wage payments to subcontractor Z-Tech employees and about the procurement of unnecessary equipment, which they claimed defrauded the U.S. government.
- Plaintiffs filed this suit under the False Claims Act (FCA), specifically the anti-retaliation provision (§ 3730(h)), after the U.S. declined to intervene.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Plaintiffs neither engaged in FCA-protected activity nor was their termination retaliatory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held (Court's Ruling) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protected activity under FCA | Plaintiffs raised concerns about fraud in wage payments and equipment procurement | Complaints did not rise to the level of FCA-protected activity (no fraud nexus) | No FCA-protected activity shown |
| Reasonable belief of FCA violation | Plaintiffs believed government was being defrauded | No credible, objective evidence of fraudulent conduct or government overcharge | No objectively reasonable belief of FCA violation |
| Causation (retaliatory motive) | Plaintiffs' complaints led directly to their termination | Legitimate intervening events (misconduct, police incident) broke the chain | No causal link between alleged activity and firing |
| Sufficiency of evidence to go to a jury | Plaintiffs presented deposition and declaration testimony | Testimony was inconsistent, unsupported, and insufficient to create triable fact | Summary judgment for Defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard for genuine issue of material fact)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (movant's burden at summary judgment)
- Mann v. Heckler & Koch Defense, Inc., 630 F.3d 338 (4th Cir. 2010) (FCA protected activities analysis)
- Glynn v. EDO Corp., 710 F.3d 209 (4th Cir. 2013) (elements of FCA retaliation)
- United States ex rel. Grant v. United Airlines Inc., 912 F.3d 190 (4th Cir. 2018) (what constitutes FCA-protected activity)