United States ex rel. Grant v. United Airlines Inc.
912 F.3d 190
4th Cir.2018Background
- Relator David Grant, a Lead Aviation Maintenance Technician at Charleston AFB (2008–2014), sued United Airlines under the False Claims Act (FCA) based on maintenance of F117 engines for C-17 aircraft performed under a subcontract chain (Air Force → Boeing → Pratt & Whitney → United).
- SAC alleges United engaged in ‘‘pencil whipping,’’ used uncalibrated/absent tools (notably fluorescent penetrant inspection radiometer absent Dec 2013–Mar 2014), and let uncertified inspectors sign off work, yet certified repairs as complete.
- Grant reported these practices to United managers repeatedly in early 2014, documented concerns in emails, was investigated, and was terminated in May 2014.
- District court dismissed Counts I–II (31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A) & (B)) for failure to plead presentment with Rule 9(b) particularity; dismissed Count III (§ 3730(h) retaliation) for failing to allege protected activity. Grant appealed.
- Fourth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the substantive FCA claims for inadequate pleading that false claims were presented to the government, but reversed dismissal of the retaliation claim, holding Grant plausibly alleged protected activity under the amended § 3730(h).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SAC pleaded presentment of false claims under § 3729(a)(1)(A) with Rule 9(b) particularity | Grant: circumstantial allegations (pencil whipping, missing radiometer, certifications) suffice to infer false claims were submitted | United: plaintiff must plead how/when government was billed/paid; allegations don’t connect fraudulent acts to government payment | Dismissed: SAC fails to plead presentment with requisite particularity; affirmed | |
| Whether SAC pleaded a false-records claim under § 3729(a)(1)(B) without direct presentment allegations | Grant: false certifications/material records themselves establish liability; presentment can be inferred | United: must still show that false claims were submitted to the government; allegations insufficient | Dismissed: Court held § 3729(a)(1)(B) still requires showing false claim was presented; affirmed dismissal | |
| Appropriate pleading standard for FCA fraud claims | Grant: circumstantial proof may suffice per Nathan; relators without access to billing can plead plausibly | United: heightened Rule 9(b) requires indicia tying fraud to government payment | Court: Rule 9(b) applies strictly; relator must connect fraudulent acts to impact on government fisc; Nathan still allows circumstantial allegations but SAC here fell short | Court required connection to billing/payment; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Grant alleged protected activity and retaliation under § 3730(h) (post‑amendment) | Grant: his complaints and written reports were objectively reasonable efforts to stop FCA violations and thus protected; termination was causally connected | United: argued complaints did not meet pre‑amendment "distinct possibility" standard and thus not protected | Reversed: Court adopts an objective‑reasonableness standard for § 3730(h) "other efforts to stop" prong, finds Grant adequately pleaded protected activity, employer knowledge, and causal adverse action; retaliation claim allowed to proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Garnett v. Remedi Seniorcare, LLC, 892 F.3d 140 (4th Cir. 2018) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6))
- E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus. Inc., 637 F.3d 435 (4th Cir. 2011) (limiting consideration to pleadings on Rule 12(b)(6))
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- United States ex rel. Nathan v. Takeda Pharm. N. Am., Inc., 707 F.3d 451 (4th Cir. 2013) (Rule 9(b) presentment pleading standards; circumstantial ‘‘necessarily presented’’ theory)
- United States ex rel. Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 352 F.3d 908 (4th Cir. 2003) (FCA requires impact on government fisc)
- United States ex rel. Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776 (4th Cir. 1999) (definition and centrality of presentment in FCA claims)
- United States ex rel. Wilson v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 525 F.3d 370 (4th Cir. 2008) (particularity elements: time, place, contents, identity)
- United States ex rel. Lusby v. Rolls‑Royce Corp., 570 F.3d 849 (7th Cir. 2009) (example where direct contractor relationship supported presentment inference)
- Mann v. Heckler & Koch Def., Inc., 630 F.3d 338 (4th Cir. 2011) (discussion of "distinct possibility" standard for pre‑amendment § 3730(h))
- Halasa v. ITT Educ. Servs., Inc., 690 F.3d 844 (7th Cir. 2012) (protected activity can include efforts to stop FCA violations)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (standard for materially adverse employment action in retaliation contexts)
- Allison Engine Co. v. United States ex rel. Sanders, 553 U.S. 662 (2008) (false‑records liability requires purpose of getting false claim paid or approved)