Categories: Financial Services

By: Stuart M. Gerson

On May 16, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel. Kirk (pdf), holding that the public disclosure bar of the False Claims Act (FCA) is triggered by a federal agency’s written response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. This important, and much awaited, decision makes it clear that an agency’s FOIA response constitutes a “report” for purposes of the FCA’s public disclosure bar, which forecloses private parties from bringing qui tam whistleblower suits to recover falsely or fraudulently obtained federal payments where those suits are "based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions in a criminal, civil, or administrative hearing, in a congressional, administrative, or Government Accounting Office report, hearing, audit, or investigation, or from the news media." 31 U. S. C. §3730(e)(4)(A).

The Respondent in the underlying case, a Vietnam War Veteran, brought a qui tam lawsuit under the FCA, alleging that his former employer submitted hundreds of false claims for payment under federal contracts that were subject to certain reporting requirements under the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA). Specifically, the Respondent alleged that his former employer failed to adequately report the number of veterans it employed to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). In support of his allegations, the Respondent relied upon three written responses to FOIA requests, which his wife received from the DOL, which supplied the reports filed by the company, or lack thereof. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, reversing an order of dismissal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, held that the DOL’s response was neither a “report” nor an “investigation,” as contemplated by the FCA’s public disclosure bar. The Supreme Court reversed per Justice Thomas, writing for himself, Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Alito.  Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor, dissented. Justice Kagan took no part in this case.

Back to Workforce Bulletin Blog

Search This Blog

Blog Editors

Related Services



Jump to Page


Sign up to receive an email notification when new Workforce Bulletin posts are published:

Privacy Preference Center

When you visit any website, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. This information might be about you, your preferences or your device and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalized web experience. Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings. However, blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.

Performance Cookies

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.