Employment — False Claims Act

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Employment — False Claims Act

Where a terminated employee cannot show that the decisionmaker knew about his activity under the False Claims Act, summary judgment was properly granted to the employer on his retaliation claim.

“Even assuming that his conduct was protected by the Act, however, Halasa faces a second hurdle. He must show that his protected conduct was connected to ITT’s decision to fire him. Practically, in order to avoid summary judgment he must have evidence that would support a finding that he was fired ‘because of’ his protected conduct. That is where his case founders. The record is undisputed that the decision to fire Halasa was made by Vice President Barry Simich and approved by Senior Vice President Nina Esbin, Executive Vice President Feichtner, and CEO Modany. Yet Halasa has no evidence that any of these decisionmakers knew of his protected conduct. Rather, the record shows that Halasa reported his findings only to Ortega, Hemphill, and Carpentier and there is no indication that any of these people passed along Halasa’s findings to the decisionmakers. Halasa’s best evidence is deposition testimony stating that all formal ethics complaints are required to be forwarded to Simich. But none of Halasa’s False Claims Act-related reports was expressed as a formal ethics complaint, and there is no evidence either that any of these reports ever reached a decisionmaker or that any of them otherwise learned of Halasa’s protected activity.”

Affirmed.

11-3305 Halasa v. ITT Educational Services, Inc.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Lawrence, J., Wood, J.