Michael P. Moore v. California Institute of Technology Jet Propulsion Laboratory

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a plaintiff bringing an FCA retaliation claim must show actual or potential actions by the employer that “reasonably could lead to a viable FCA action”
• finding “[t]he False Claims Act is 24 aimed at fraud by government contractors” and applying the same elements as 10 U.S.C.A 25 § 2409 claims
• defining protected activity as where an employee in good 5 faith and reasonably believes, “that the employer is possibly committing fraud against the 6 government”
• reporting laboratory's lies used to increase government compensation for project's early completion is protected activity
• determining that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether plaintiff engaged in protected activity because a reasonable jury could conclude that plaintiffs employer had lied to the outside expert in order to increase the amount of compensation it would receive from NASA
• agreeing with the proposition that “behavior does not constitute retaliation under the [FCA] . . . unless it would be sufficient to constitute an adverse employment action under Title VII”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).