Law Center Search Results

The Supreme Court held 6/20/05 that the six-year statute of limitations in the False Claims Act (FCA) does not govern civil actions for retaliation under the FCA. The False Claims Act creates a “qui tam” cause of action for a private person to sue, on the Government’s behalf, an entity for making false claims to the Government for payment. The FCA also provides a cause of action to a whistleblower who has been wrongfully discharged for bringing a qui tam action. Both the qui tam and the retaliatory discharge causes of action are codified at 31 U.S.C. § 3730, but the prohibition on making false claims to the government is set forth at 31 U.S.C. § 3729. The FCA’s limitations provision states in pertinent part that “[a] civil action under section 3730 may not be brought—(1) more than 6 years after the date on which the violation of section 3729 is committed.” 31 U.S.C. § 3731(b). The Court, in a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Thomas, reasoned that the FCA’s limitations provision was ambiguous as to whether it applies to retaliatory discharge actions, because the six-year period does not begin to run until a false claim is made and a retaliatory discharge plaintiff is not required to prove that a false claim was actually made. The Court ruled that the best way to resolve this ambiguity is to construe the reference to “section 3730” in the limitations provision to mean only false claims actions by the Government, § 3730(a), or a private individual, § 3730(b), but not to actions for retaliatory discharge, § 3730(h). The Court then held that retaliatory discharge claims under the FCA are governed by the most closely analogous state statute of limitations. In dissent, Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Ginsburg, argued that the FCA expressly sets forth the limitations period applicable to a “civil action under section 3730,” including a cause of action for retaliatory discharge, and that this period should be deemed triggered by any alleged or suspected violation of federal false claims law. This case is important to any business that is subject to suit under the False Claims Act.