Filed May 14, 2009
To prevail, a plaintiff must show (1) that she was engaged in conduct protected under the FCA, (2) that her employer knew about the protected activity, and (3) that the employer discharged or discriminated against her because of the protected activity. Maturi v. McLaughlin Research Corp., 413 F.3d 166, 172 (1st Cir. 2005). Hutcheson does not allege any of these elements.
Filed August 23, 2007
2 Case 1:07-cv-00150-T-DLM Document 11 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 2 of 18 A claim pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733, (“FCA”) is defined as “any request or demand . . . for money or property which is made . . . if the United States Government provides [or will reimburse] any portion of the money or property which is requested or demanded.” Maturi v. McLaughlin Research Corp., 413 F.3d 166, 171 fn13 (1st Cir. 2005) (quoting 31 U.S.C. § 3729(c)). A number of courts have also found FCA violations where a defendant falsely certifies compliance with certain conditions required as a prerequisite for a government benefit or payment in order to induce that benefit.