U.S. ex rel. Uhlig v. Fluor Corp.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in action by plaintiff-former employee, alleging that defendant violated False Claims Act when it breached Army contract by using unlicensed electricians as journeymen and billing government for their services. Instant contract did not require that defendant’s electricians be licensed, and thus defendant was not in breach of its contract with government when it submitted invoices for electrical work performed by unlicensed electricians. Fact that defendant generated emails interpreting Army contract to prohibit use of unlicensed foreign individuals from performing electrical work did not require different result. Dist. Ct. also did not err in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s claim that he was terminated for protesting defendant’s conduct that formed basis of his False Claims Act claim. Plaintiff failed to show that he had engaged in protected conduct, where: (1) at time plaintiff registered protest he had not read applicable agreement; and (2) no reasonable employee in plaintiff’s position would have believed that defendant was defrauding government at time he registered protest.