Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel. Kirk

2011-05-16

Headline: Court rules that agencies’ written FOIA responses count as official reports under the False Claims Act’s public-disclosure rule, making some whistleblower lawsuits easier to block.

Holding: The Court held that a federal agency’s written response to a FOIA request, together with any attached records, qualifies as a “report” under the False Claims Act’s public-disclosure bar, so such disclosures can bar some whistleblower suits.

Real World Impact:

Makes it harder for whistleblowers to bring lawsuits based on documents obtained through FOIA.
Treats agency FOIA responses and attached records as official public reports.
Remands to lower court to decide whether this suit relied on those disclosures.

Topics: whistleblower lawsuits, FOIA requests, False Claims Act, government contractors, veterans hiring reports

Summary

Background

A former employee and Vietnam veteran said his employer, a company that installs and services elevators, failed to file truthful annual reports contractors must submit about veteran hiring. To check his suspicions, his wife requested the company’s filings from the Department of Labor under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The agency replied in writing, providing copies of many filings and noting years with no records. The employee then sued under the False Claims Act (a law that allows private whistleblowers to sue for fraud on the government). Lower courts disagreed about whether the FOIA responses counted as government “reports.”

Reasoning

The Court confronted a narrow question: does a federal agency’s written FOIA response qualify as a “report” for the False Claims Act’s public-disclosure rule? The majority applied the ordinary meaning of “report” and concluded that a written FOIA reply — including any records attached to it — is an official statement that “gives information.” The Court found FOIA’s required written notices and agency practices show those replies are formal communications, so they fall within the public-disclosure rule. The Court reversed the appeals court and sent the case back for the lower court to decide whether this particular lawsuit was based on those disclosures.

Real world impact

The ruling means that whistleblowers who obtain documents through a written FOIA reply may find their lawsuits barred if the suit is “based upon” those disclosures. The opinion does not resolve whether a later suit that relies on other sources can avoid the bar, and the case was remanded for further factual work.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued that FOIA replies merely assemble existing documents without the government’s investigative synthesis, and warned the decision will restrict lawful whistleblowing; three Justices joined that view.