United States Ex Rel. Uhlig v. Fluor Corp., 839 F.3d 628

Background

Fluor held a LOGCAP IV IDIQ contract with the Army; Modification 4 required contractor personnel to “possess a license, certification, training, and/or education commensurate with the level of duties” and to implement an approved Trades Certification and Validation Plan (Plan).
Fluor’s approved Plan allowed multiple means to establish journeyman qualifications (license, certification, training, education); it stated electricians “may be required to hold a license.”
Fluor hired former KBR electricians for Task Order 5 in Afghanistan, including U.S. citizen foremen like Eric Uhlig and non-U.S. "other-country nationals."
Fluor later adopted an internal policy requiring state or U.K. licenses for journeymen; it reclassified unlicensed U.S. foremen (including Uhlig) as “helpers” and warned termination unless licensed; other-country nationals were kept as helpers for cost/benefit reasons.
Uhlig sent emails to Fluor managers, a Defense Contract Management Agency officer, and a public website alleging Fluor was using unlicensed electricians and wasting U.S. funds; Fluor terminated him one week later, citing policy violations and disclosure of private contact information.
Uhlig sued under the False Claims Act (FCA) for breach and for retaliatory discharge. The district court granted summary judgment to Fluor; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Fluor violated the FCA by billing the government for work performed by unlicensed electricians	Uhlig: Fluor knowingly used unlicensed journeymen in breach of the LOGCAP IV requirements and submitted invoices for that work	Fluor: Contract/Plan allowed qualification via license, certification, training, or education; licensing was not contractually required	Held: No breach; summary judgment for Fluor — not a false claim under the FCA
Whether Modification 4/Plan became an “alternative contract” binding Fluor to a single verification method once it chose licensing	Uhlig: Once Fluor elected a method, it was bound to that method and breached when it deviated	Fluor: Modification 4/Plan permit compatible, multiple methods (use of “and/or”); no exclusive election required	Held: Not an alternative contract; Fluor could use different methods for different workers
Whether Uhlig’s communications were protected activity under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) (good-faith and objective reasonableness)	Uhlig: He reasonably and in good faith believed Fluor was defrauding the government by using unlicensed electricians	Fluor: Uhlig lacked objective basis — he had not read the contract/Plan and contemporaneous emails did not show a contractual requirement of licensure; thus no reasonable belief of fraud	Held: Not protected activity — no objective basis for believing fraud; retaliation claim fails
Whether termination was unlawful retaliation or justified by policy violations (disclosure of private contact info/computer-use policy)	Uhlig: Termination was retaliation for blowing the whistle	Fluor: Termination was for policy violations (sending internal contact info to public site) and because Uhlig lacked protected activity	Held: Termination not actionable under FCA because the underlying communications were not protected; summary judgment affirmed

Key Cases Cited

United States ex rel. Feingold v. AdminaStar Fed., Inc., 324 F.3d 492 (7th Cir.) (procedural standard for summary judgment in FCA cases)
United States ex rel. Yannacopoulos v. Gen. Dynamics, 652 F.3d 818 (7th Cir.) (elements of FCA liability; contract language controls intent)
Halasa v. ITT Educ. Servs., Inc., 690 F.3d 844 (7th Cir.) (FCA retaliation: plaintiff must show protected activity and causal connection)
Fanslow v. Chicago Mfg. Ctr., Inc., 384 F.3d 469 (7th Cir.) (two-part test for protected FCA activity: subjective good-faith belief and objective reasonableness)
Mann v. Heckler & Koch Def., Inc., 630 F.3d 338 (4th Cir.) (objective-prong inquiry focuses on facts known to employee at the time)