United States Ex Rel. Schweizer v. Océ N.V.
400 U.S. App. D.C. 284
D.C. Cir.2012Background
- Schweizer, a former Océ employee, sues Océ North America and related entities under the False Claims Act (qui tam and retaliation).
- The government declined to intervene in the qui tam claims but participated in settlement negotiations.
- Océ and the government reached a settlement in 2009 disposing of Counts I–II in exchange for payment to the government and a partial relator share; Counts I–II were dismissed after the government moved to dismiss, and the district court did so over Schweizer’s objections.
- Schweizer’s retaliation claim (Count III) was initially resolved in Océ’s favor via summary judgment, based on a premise that Schweizer did not put Océ on notice of protected activity.
- The district court later dismissed Counts I–II without reviewing the proposed settlement under § 3730(c)(2)(B), and granted summary judgment on Count III; on appeal, the D.C. Circuit reverses and remands for a § 3730(c)(2)(B) hearing and for reconsideration of Count III.
- The court adopts McDonnell Douglas framework for retaliation analysis and remands to consider whether a reasonable jury could find retaliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of § 3730(c)(2)(B) judicial review | Relator argues settlement required judicial review. | Government/Océ say § 3730(c)(2)(A) allows unfettered dismissal. | Constitutional as applied; remand for § 3730(c)(2)(B) hearing. |
| Authority to dismiss Counts I–II without § 3730(c)(2)(B) review | Settlement should be reviewed for fairness, adequacy, reasonableness. | Dismissal permitted under § 3730(c)(2)(A) without § 3730(c)(2)(B) review. | Settlement triggers § 3730(c)(2)(B) review; remand. |
| Protected activity and causation in retaliation claim | Schweizer engaged in protected activity by reporting FCA issues outside normal duties. | Schweizer’s actions were within her job duties; no protected activity establishing causation. | Genuine issues of material fact on notice; remand for McDonnell Douglas analysis. |
| Application of McDonnell Douglas framework to § 3730(h) retaliation | McDonnell Douglas framework should govern retaliation proof. | Not addressed; government argues alternative standard. | Adopted McDonnell Douglas framework; remand to assess if retaliation proven. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vt. Agency of Nat. Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765 (2000) (requires judicial review for settlement fairness under FCA §3730(c)(2)(B))
- Swift v. United States, 318 F.3d 250 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (unfettered right to dismiss qui tam claims under § 3730(c)(2)(A))
- Hoyte v. American National Red Cross, 518 F.3d 61 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (limits and context for government intervention and dismissal power)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (settlement enforcement and incorporation into orders require court involvement in some cases)
- Yesudian v. Howard Univ., 153 F.3d 731 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (protections for protected activity under FCA §3730(h))
- Martin-Baker Aircraft Co. v. United States, 389 F.3d 1251 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (notice requirement for retaliation claim under FCA §3730(h) varies by role/executed duties)
- Jones v. Bernanke, 557 F.3d 670 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (McDonnell Douglas framework for retaliation)