Mary C. McKenzie v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc., D/B/A South Central Bell Telephone Company

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that to be protected by the FCA when confronting an employer, the employee “must sufficiently allege activity with a nexus to a qui tam action, or fraud against the United States government”
• holding that to be protected by the FCA when confronting an employer, the employee “must sufficiently allege activity with a nexus to a qui tam action, or fraud against the United States government”
• stating that to constitute protected activity, “the internal reports must allege fraud on the government”
• noting that the “‘law of the case’ doctrine is ‘directed to a court’s common sense’ and is not an ‘inexorable command’”
• noting that telling an employer about their alleged regulatory violations was not sufficient to satisfy this requirement
• holding that the plaintiff failed to show that her discharge was “because of” the protected activity or that the employer was aware of her “protected activity,” and thus, the employer’s termination of the plaintiff could not have been motivated by her protected activity

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).