806 F.3d 946
7th Cir.2015Background
- LuAnn Ziebell worked for the Fox Valley Workforce Development Board, fired in 2008, and brought a qui tam action alleging FCA violations via false certifications through an in-house subsidiary.
- Ziebell alleged regulatory noncompliance from the Board’s use of Workforce Economics, its own subsidiary, to provide services; the Board had transitioned away from competitive bidding per a 2007 DWD audit.
- DWD audit criticized the Board’s practice of contracting through Workforce Economics; Welch acknowledged the issue in February 2008 and stated Workforce Economics would not bid in 2008–2009.
- Board continued to solicit bids in 2008 but limited options left it to rely on Workforce Economics for service provision, and the May 15, 2008 Board meeting approved that arrangement.
- Ziebell attended the May 2008 meeting with audit materials, disrupted the meeting, and was subsequently terminated four days later for listed reasons, including disruption and truancy.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Board; the United States declined to participate in the qui tam claim; Ziebell also pursued a retaliation claim under FCA § 3730(h).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the qui tam claim is barred by public disclosure | Ziebell argues information about in-house contracting was publicly disclosed. | Board argues the public-disclosure bar applies and dismissal is required absent an original source. | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to public-disclosure bar. |
| Whether Ziebell is an original source of the information | Ziebell claims direct knowledge and independent knowledge prior to filing. | Board contends Ziebell lacks direct/independent knowledge and voluntary disclosure to government. | Original-source exception not satisfied; dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether the false-certification theory is viable | Ziebell relies on false certification under § 3729(a)(1)(B). | Statements were boilerplate or forward-looking assurances lacking fraudulent intent or nexus to federal payments. | False-certification theory failed; no fraudulent intent shown and no nexus to payments. |
| Whether the retaliation claim has merit | Ziebell was retaliated against for protected FCA activity. | No evidence of protected activity or causal link to firing; non-fraud regulatory concerns. | Retaliation claim failed; no protected activity or causal nexus shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States ex rel. Absher v. Momence Nursing Center, Inc., 764 F.3d 699 (7th Cir. 2014) (false-certification elements and causation considerations)
- United States ex rel. Gross v. AIDS Research Alliance-Chi., 415 F.3d 601 (7th Cir. 2005) (false certification standards)
- Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457 (Supreme Court 2007) (public-disclosure bar framework)
- Glaser v. Wound Care Consultants, Inc., 570 F.3d 907 (7th Cir. 2009) (public-disclosure, original-source analysis framework)
- Feingold v. AdminaStar Fed., Inc., 324 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2003) (definition of public disclosure and standards for disclosure)
- Graham Cnty. Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 559 U.S. 280 (Supreme Court 2010) (state/local disclosures triggering public-disclosure bar)
- Fanslow v. Chicago Mfg. Ctr., Inc., 384 F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 2004) (retaliation standard under § 3730(h))
- Moore v. Cal. Inst. of Tech. Jet Propulsion Lab., 275 F.3d 838 (9th Cir. 2002) (reasonableness and good-faith standard for protected activity)