Qui Tam Lawsuits and Whistleblower Rights under Employment Law
Qui Tam Lawsuits and Whistleblower Rights under Employment Law
1. What are Qui Tam Lawsuits?
Qui tam is a legal provision allowing a private individual, often called a “relator” or whistleblower, to file a lawsuit on behalf of the government against a person or company accused of defrauding the government. The term “qui tam” comes from a Latin phrase meaning “he who sues in this matter for the king as well as for himself.”
The whistleblower can receive a portion of any recovery (usually 15-30%) if the case is successful.
These lawsuits are a part of the False Claims Act (FCA) in the United States, primarily aimed at combating fraud against the federal government.
2. Whistleblower Rights under Employment Law
Whistleblowers who bring qui tam suits are generally protected by law from retaliation by their employers. This means they cannot be fired, demoted, harassed, or discriminated against for reporting fraud or illegal activity.
3. Key Features of Qui Tam Lawsuits
Filing a Complaint: The whistleblower files a sealed complaint in federal court detailing the fraud.
Government Intervention: The government investigates and decides whether to intervene and take over the case or allow the whistleblower to proceed alone.
Recovery and Rewards: If successful, the whistleblower may receive a reward; if unsuccessful, they might not recover fees.
Retaliation Protections: Whistleblowers are protected from workplace retaliation.
4. Statutory Framework
False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733) — The main U.S. law that allows qui tam actions.
Other statutes may include Sarbanes-Oxley Act and Dodd-Frank Act, which provide additional protections and incentives for whistleblowers, especially in securities law.
5. Case Law Examples
✅ United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U.S. 537 (1943)
Facts: Contractors submitted false claims to the government.
Held: The Supreme Court upheld the False Claims Act, confirming the government's ability to recover damages for fraud.
Importance: Established the foundation for the government’s right to pursue fraud claims via qui tam actions.
✅ Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765 (2000)
Facts: The scope of qui tam suits was challenged.
Held: The Supreme Court ruled that only the government may pursue claims for civil penalties under certain environmental statutes; qui tam relators cannot.
Importance: Clarified limits on qui tam actions under statutes not explicitly authorizing them.
✅ O’Donnell v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2010
Facts: A whistleblower alleged fraud in mortgage lending.
Held: The court emphasized protection of whistleblowers from retaliation under employment law.
Importance: Demonstrates how whistleblower protections extend beyond the FCA to employment retaliation claims.
6. Whistleblower Protections in Employment
Anti-Retaliation: Employers cannot retaliate by firing, demoting, or discriminating.
Remedies for Retaliation: Reinstatement, back pay, compensatory damages, and sometimes punitive damages.
Confidentiality: Whistleblowers often remain anonymous until the government intervenes or chooses to disclose.
7. Practical Considerations
Whistleblowers must have direct knowledge or evidence of wrongdoing.
Filing a qui tam lawsuit requires careful preparation due to the complexity of proving fraud.
The government’s decision to intervene significantly impacts the outcome.
Whistleblowers often need legal counsel experienced in FCA and employment law.
8. Summary
| Aspect | Description |
|---|---|
| Qui Tam Lawsuit | Lawsuit filed by a private person on behalf of the government to recover damages from fraud against the government. |
| Whistleblower Rights | Protection from retaliation in the workplace for reporting fraud or illegal activities. |
| Reward | Percentage of recovered damages (typically 15-30%). |
| Legal Basis | Primarily the False Claims Act (FCA). |
| Retaliation Protections | Prohibition against firing, demotion, or harassment of whistleblowers. |
| Key Cases | United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess; Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. Stevens; O’Donnell v. Countrywide. |
Conclusion
Qui tam lawsuits empower employees and insiders to act against fraud on behalf of the government while offering protections against employer retaliation. The balance of incentives and protections is critical to encouraging whistleblowing, which in turn helps uphold the integrity of government programs and employment environments.
RELATED Blog
0 comments