Opinion ID: 723865
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the school district's motion for judgment as a matter of law

Text: 36 This court reviews a district court's refusal to grant judgment as a matter of law after trial de novo. Mathis v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 75 F.3d 498, 501 (9th Cir.1996). The district court's refusal must be affirmed if there is substantial evidence to support the verdict. Maynard v. City of San Jose, 37 F.3d 1396, 1404 (9th Cir.1994). Substantial evidence is evidence reasonable minds might accept as adequate to support a conclusion even if it is possible to draw two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence. Id. 37 The facts central to the School District's motion are essentially uncontroverted. The paramount issue is whether Hopper has proven a claim of retaliation under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) (1994) as a matter of law. The School District contends that (1) Hopper was not investigating fraud and is therefore not covered by § 3730(h); (2) it could not have known Hopper was investigating fraud as required under the Act; and (3) it did not retaliate against Hopper because of her complaints. We find merit in the School District's first two arguments. We need not reach the last issue. 38 Congress added 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) to the FCA in 1986 to protect whistleblowers, those who come forward with evidence their employer is defrauding the government, from retaliation by their employer. S.Rep. No. 345, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 34 (1986), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5266, 5299. Section 3730(h) provides in relevant part as follows: 39 Any employee who is discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment by his or her employer because of lawful acts done by the employee on behalf of the employee or others in furtherance of an action under this section, including investigation for, initiation of, testimony for, or assistance in an action filed or to be filed under this section, shall be entitled to all relief necessary to make the employee whole. 40 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h). Examining the text of the statute, there are three elements the plaintiff must prove in any § 3730(h) claim: 1) the employee must have been engaging in conduct protected under the Act; 2) the employer must have known that the employee was engaging in such conduct; and 3) the employer must have discriminated against the employee because of her protected conduct. See S.Rep. No. 345, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 34-35 (1986), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5266, 5299-300; Mikes v. Strauss, 889 F.Supp. 746, 752 (S.D.N.Y.1995). 41 In this case, Hopper was not engaged in activity protected under the Act. Judgment should have been granted against her as a matter of law. Section 3730(h) only protects employees who have acted in furtherance of an action under the FCA. Specific awareness of the FCA is not required. However, the plaintiff must be investigating matters which are calculated, or reasonably could lead, to a viable FCA action. Neal v. Honeywell Inc., 33 F.3d 860, 864 (7th Cir.1994). See also Robertson v. Bell Helicopter Textron, 32 F.3d 948, 950-52 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1110, 130 L.Ed.2d 1075 (1995) (holding that a plaintiff must be investigating fraud in order to bring a FCA suit to be protected under § 3730(h)). 42 The entire record fails to demonstrate Hopper was engaged in furtherance of an action under the FCA. Rather, the record quite clearly shows Hopper was merely attempting to get the School District to comply with Federal and State regulations. Her numerous written complaints, seventy letters and over fifty telephone calls were all directed toward this end. She was not trying to recover money for the government; she was attempting to get classroom teachers into IEP evaluation sessions. She was not investigating fraud. She was not whistleblowing as envisioned in the paradigm qui tam FCA action. United States ex rel. Fine v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 72 F.3d 740, 742 (9th Cir.1995) (en banc), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 1877, 135 L.Ed.2d 173 (1996). Quite plainly, the thrust of her complaints was that the School District was failing to meet its IDEA obligations to its students. Correcting regulatory problems may be a laudable goal, but one not actionable under the FCA in the absence of actual fraudulent conduct. Her FCA allegations were not sufficient to pass summary judgment muster. Her investigatory activity did not have any nexus to the FCA. Thus, the district court should have granted the School District's motion for judgment as a matter of law. 43 Further, unless the employer is aware that the employee is investigating fraud, the employer could not possess the retaliatory intent necessary to establish a violation of § 3730(h). Robertson, 32 F.3d at 952. The legislative history clearly provides that a whistleblower must show the employer had knowledge the employee engaged in 'protected activity.'  S.Rep. No. 345, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 35 (1986), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5266, 5300. 44 The only party which the jury found guilty of retaliation was Thompson, an individual defendant. Here the parties heatedly argue about whether Thompson had knowledge of Hopper's complaints to the CDOE. Even if Thompson were intimately familiar with Hopper's complaints, Hopper never gave any indication she was investigating the School District for defrauding the federal government. Thompson may have engaged in retaliation for Hopper's activities, but the record does not show any connection to the FCA. The district court should have granted judgment as a matter of law.