Nguyen v. City of Cleveland

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an employer could be held liable under section 3730(h) for retaliating against an employee who prosecuted an FCA action against employer’s client
• holding that the 7 FCA “reaches an employer who discriminates against an employee, at the behest of or on behalf 8 of another, when it is the other that seeks to retaliate against the employee for protected 9 conduct”
• noting that “there is no explicit statutory directive” indicating Congress’s intent to preclude arbitration of FCA retaliation claims
• noting that “despite [the plaintiffs] arguments to the contrary, no unmistakable implication from legislative history” indicates Congress’s intent to preclude arbitration of FCA retaliation claims
• finding the FCA’s retaliation provision “reaches an employer who discriminates against an employee” for reporting the false claims of a customer

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).