{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca3-25-1480-2026-08-04","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca3-25-1480-2026-08-04)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-17","fingerprint":"ewai:us:e7344b","proof":"sha256:18d0786f2ceb6fb0fdaf57de11b8d23db3aa4a943faa24583e3ecc01ef1108c6","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ca3-25-1480-2026-08-04","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"PRECEDENTIAL","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT","paragraphs":["para_4"]},{"title":"No. 25-1480","paragraphs":["para_6","para_7"]},{"title":"Appellant","paragraphs":["para_9"]},{"title":"OLYMPUS CORP. OF THE AMERICAS; OLYMPUS","paragraphs":["para_11","para_12"]},{"title":"On Appeal from the United States District Court","paragraphs":["para_14"]},{"title":"(D.C. No. 5:24-cv-01803)","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"District Judge: Honorable Jeffrey L. Schmehl","paragraphs":["para_17"]},{"title":"Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"February 9, 2026","paragraphs":["para_20"]},{"title":"Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, SCIRICA* and","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"RENDELL, Circuit Judges","paragraphs":["para_23","para_24"]},{"title":"2","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(Opinion Filed: August 4, 2026)","paragraphs":["para_27"]},{"title":"OPINION OF THE COURT","paragraphs":["para_29","para_30"]},{"title":"Paul Lisenby worked as the Global Head of Product","paragraphs":["para_32","para_33"]},{"title":"Inc. (together, “Olympus”),1 which are United States","paragraphs":["para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44"]},{"title":"The District Court granted Olympus’s motion to dismiss","paragraphs":["para_46","para_47","para_48"]},{"title":"1 The defendants-appellees are wholly-owned subsidiaries of","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Olympus Corporation, all of which are part of a single","paragraphs":["para_51","para_52"]},{"title":"3","paragraphs":["para_54","para_55","para_56"]},{"title":"Court thus concluded that Lisenby failed to allege that he had","paragraphs":["para_58","para_59"]},{"title":"We have held that Congress’s 2009–2010 amendments","paragraphs":["para_61","para_62","para_63"]},{"title":"55 F.4th 188, 194–95 (3d Cir. 2022). But we have not yet","paragraphs":["para_65","para_66"]},{"title":"U.S.C. § 3730(h)(1). As explained below, we hold that a","paragraphs":["para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74"]},{"title":"I.2","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"2 We take these facts from the Amended Complaint. At the","paragraphs":["para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80"]},{"title":"4","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Olympus sells medical devices to the federal","paragraphs":["para_83"]},{"title":"(“VA”). The VA is Olympus’s largest customer in the United","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"States, and Olympus America, Inc. receives more than $85","paragraphs":["para_86","para_87","para_88"]},{"title":"Global Head of Product Development between May 2022 and","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"March 2024. In this position, Lisenby was not responsible for","paragraphs":["para_91","para_92","para_93"]},{"title":"During an approximately two-week period in early","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"2024, Lisenby complained to other Olympus employees that","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Olympus was violating FDA regulations.3 Lisenby’s concerns","paragraphs":["para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105"]},{"title":"3 The Amended Complaint alleges that Lisenby raised other","paragraphs":["para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112"]},{"title":"5","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Lisenby’s concerns thus focused on “design quality and non-","paragraphs":["para_115"]},{"title":"App. 6. Given these issues, Lisenby “believed that if Olympus","paragraphs":["para_117","para_118","para_119"]},{"title":"Lisenby first began sharing his concerns in late January","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"2024. These communications were made outside of his chain","paragraphs":["para_122"]},{"title":"Global Head of Olympus’s Therapeutic Solutions Division at","paragraphs":["para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127"]},{"title":"App. 7. He also shared his “serious concerns” about","paragraphs":["para_129","para_130","para_131"]},{"title":"8. A few days later, Lisenby discussed the same concerns in a","paragraphs":["para_133"]},{"title":"Manager of the GI Endo-Therapy Business Unit. Callaghan","paragraphs":["para_135","para_136","para_137"]},{"title":"Lisenby then emailed Andre Roggan, his direct","paragraphs":["para_139"]},{"title":"Technology Officer (“CTO”), about a design methodology","paragraphs":["para_141","para_142"]},{"title":"States. Lisenby suggested that Olympus could use DFSS to","paragraphs":["para_144"]},{"title":"6","paragraphs":["para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149"]},{"title":"Lisenby also shared his concerns at the CTO","paragraphs":["para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154"]},{"title":"DFSS was “a way to eliminate [Olympus’s] systemic FDA","paragraphs":["para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161"]},{"title":"A little over a week after the CTO meetings, Lisenby","paragraphs":["para_163"]},{"title":"Design and Assurance. Lisenby told Rainis about Olympus’s","paragraphs":["para_165","para_166"]},{"title":"10. He also discussed his concern that Olympus did not have","paragraphs":["para_168"]},{"title":"FDA regulatory standards. Rainis agreed with Lisenby’s","paragraphs":["para_170","para_171","para_172"]},{"title":"Affairs. Lisenby discussed his concerns about Olympus’s","paragraphs":["para_174","para_175","para_176"]},{"title":"7","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The day after Lisenby met with Brill, Roggan told","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Lisenby that his position had been eliminated. Olympus did","paragraphs":["para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183"]},{"title":"Private Whistleblowers Act. Olympus moved to dismiss the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Complaint for failure to state a claim, and Lisenby amended","paragraphs":["para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197"]},{"title":"FDA regulatory violations to a specific FCA violation, the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"District Court held that Lisenby had not sufficiently alleged","paragraphs":["para_200"]},{"title":"Lisenby’s retaliation claim with prejudice.5 Lisenby timely","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"4 Lisenby does not challenge on appeal the District Court’s","paragraphs":["para_203"]},{"title":"5 The District Court did not explain why dismissal with","paragraphs":["para_205","para_206","para_207"]},{"title":"8","paragraphs":["para_209"]},{"title":"II.6","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"On appeal, Lisenby challenges the District Court’s","paragraphs":["para_212"]},{"title":"We first describe the relevant parts of that statute. Next, we","paragraphs":["para_214","para_215"]},{"title":"Nor does he contend, in the alternative, that he should be given","paragraphs":["para_217"]},{"title":"Lisenby had raised such an argument before us, that argument","paragraphs":["para_219"]},{"title":"Amended Complaint before the District Court. See Fletcher-","paragraphs":["para_221"]},{"title":"253 (3d Cir. 2007) (“[I]n ordinary civil litigation it is hardly","paragraphs":["para_223"]},{"title":"Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss when the plaintiff has not","paragraphs":["para_225"]},{"title":"6 The District Court had jurisdiction over Lisenby’s FCA claim","paragraphs":["para_227"]},{"title":"28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review of a district","paragraphs":["para_229","para_230","para_231","para_232","para_233"]},{"title":"A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual","paragraphs":["para_235","para_236","para_237"]},{"title":"9","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"U.S.C. § 3730(h), is subject to the particularity requirement of","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b); and what constitutes","paragraphs":["para_241"]},{"title":"Claims Act retaliation claim. We hold that a False Claims Act","paragraphs":["para_243","para_244","para_245","para_246","para_247","para_248","para_249","para_250"]},{"title":"District Court’s order dismissing Lisenby’s FCA retaliation","paragraphs":["para_252","para_253"]},{"title":"The False Claims Act imposes liability on any person","paragraphs":["para_255","para_256","para_257","para_258"]},{"title":"Spitzer, 253 F.3d 176, 181–82 (3d Cir. 2001). The government","paragraphs":["para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264","para_265"]},{"title":"The FCA contains an anti-retaliation provision that","paragraphs":["para_267","para_268"]},{"title":"10","paragraphs":["para_270","para_271","para_272","para_273"]},{"title":"253 F.3d at 186). A plaintiff must also show that his employer","paragraphs":["para_275","para_276"]},{"title":"194–95 (3d Cir. 2022), and that the protected conduct was the","paragraphs":["para_278","para_279","para_280"]},{"title":"Section 3730(h)(1) protects employees from retaliation for","paragraphs":["para_282","para_283","para_284"]},{"title":"Before considering the merits, we must first determine","paragraphs":["para_286"]},{"title":"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires only “a short and","paragraphs":["para_288","para_289"]},{"title":"Procedure 9(b), by contrast, requires claims involving","paragraphs":["para_291","para_292"]},{"title":"A person is liable under the FCA for, among other","paragraphs":["para_294","para_295","para_296","para_297","para_298"]},{"title":"157–58 (3d Cir. 2014) (determining whether the plaintiff’s","paragraphs":["para_300"]},{"title":"11","paragraphs":["para_302","para_303"]},{"title":"(imposing liability on employers that “discriminate[] against”","paragraphs":["para_305","para_306","para_307","para_308"]},{"title":"8(a)’s notice pleading standard.7","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"We turn now to the question of what constitutes","paragraphs":["para_311","para_312","para_313","para_314","para_315"]},{"title":"U.S.C. § 3730(h)(1)). But this Court has not yet had an","paragraphs":["para_317","para_318","para_319"]},{"title":"7 This conclusion is consistent with the decision of every other","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Court of Appeals to have addressed this issue. See United","paragraphs":["para_322","para_323","para_324"]},{"title":"Clark/Smoot/Russell, 796 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir. 2015);","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1103","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(9th Cir. 2008); United States ex rel. Williams v. Martin-Baker","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Aircraft Co., 389 F.3d 1251, 1259 (D.C. Cir. 2004); United","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"States ex rel. Karvelas v. Melrose-Wakefield Hosp., 360 F.3d","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"220, 238 n.23 (1st Cir. 2004), abrogated on other grounds by","paragraphs":["para_331","para_332"]},{"title":"12","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"We first conclude that to state a retaliation claim under","paragraphs":["para_335","para_336","para_337","para_338","para_339"]},{"title":"Section 3730(h)(1) protects employees from retaliation for","paragraphs":["para_341","para_342","para_343","para_344","para_345","para_346"]},{"title":"This conclusion is in accord with the decisions of","paragraphs":["para_348","para_349"]},{"title":"2021) (noting that plaintiffs “are, at a minimum, required to","paragraphs":["para_351","para_352","para_353","para_354","para_355","para_356","para_357"]},{"title":"Gov’t Sols., 923 F.3d 729, 767 (10th Cir. 2019) (explaining","paragraphs":["para_359"]},{"title":"States ex rel. Grant v. United Airlines, Inc., 912 F.3d 190, 202","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(4th Cir. 2018) (“[W]hile the plaintiff’s actions need not lead","paragraphs":["para_362","para_363"]},{"title":"Accordingly, a plaintiff has not engaged in protected conduct","paragraphs":["para_365"]},{"title":"13","paragraphs":["para_367","para_368"]},{"title":"We also hold that to engage in conduct protected by the","paragraphs":["para_370","para_371","para_372","para_373","para_374","para_375","para_376","para_377"]},{"title":"939 F.3d at 296 (noting that the “other efforts” prong is","paragraphs":["para_379"]},{"title":"8 The parties agree that this Court should adopt an objectively","paragraphs":["para_381","para_382"]},{"title":"9 The objective reasonableness standard also comports with","paragraphs":["para_384","para_385","para_386","para_387","para_388","para_389"]},{"title":"(“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 623(d); Emergency Medical","paragraphs":["para_391","para_392","para_393","para_394"]},{"title":"(3d Cir. 2006) (holding that to state a Title VII retaliation","paragraphs":["para_396"]},{"title":"14","paragraphs":["para_398","para_399","para_400","para_401","para_402"]},{"title":"Strubbe v. Crawford Cnty. Mem’l Hosp., 915 F.3d 1158, 1167","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(8th Cir. 2019); Grant, 912 F.3d at 201–02; United States ex","paragraphs":["para_405"]},{"title":"This standard consists of both a subjective component and an","paragraphs":["para_407","para_408","para_409","para_410","para_411","para_412","para_413","para_414"]},{"title":"380 F.3d 751, 759 n.2 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that an ADA","paragraphs":["para_416","para_417","para_418","para_419"]},{"title":"110-325, 122 Stat. 3553, as recognized in Robinson v. First","paragraphs":["para_421"]},{"title":"2019); Daniels v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 776 F.3d 181, 192–94","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(3d Cir. 2015) (applying the “objectively reasonable belief”","paragraphs":["para_424","para_425"]},{"title":"2018) (holding that to engage in protected conduct under the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"EMTALA, a plaintiff “need only establish that [s]he was acting","paragraphs":["para_428","para_429"]},{"title":"15","paragraphs":["para_431","para_432","para_433","para_434","para_435","para_436"]},{"title":"Inc., 149 F.3d 227, 233 (3d Cir. 1998) (explaining how § 3730","paragraphs":["para_438","para_439","para_440","para_441","para_442","para_443"]},{"title":"We turn now to the allegations in the Amended","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Complaint. At the motion to dismiss stage, Lisenby must","paragraphs":["para_446","para_447","para_448"]},{"title":"Complaint fails to allege that Lisenby believed that Olympus","paragraphs":["para_450","para_451","para_452"]},{"title":"The Amended Complaint does not contain any","paragraphs":["para_454","para_455"]},{"title":"Instead, the Amended Complaint alleges that Lisenby was","paragraphs":["para_457","para_458","para_459","para_460"]},{"title":"16","paragraphs":["para_462","para_463","para_464","para_465","para_466","para_467","para_468","para_469","para_470"]},{"title":"Yet these allegations suggest only that Lisenby was","paragraphs":["para_472","para_473","para_474"]},{"title":"Complaint alleges that Lisenby “raised concerns regarding","paragraphs":["para_476","para_477"]},{"title":"6. His concerns focused on “a lack of product safety,” “FDA","paragraphs":["para_479","para_480","para_481","para_482","para_483"]},{"title":"Lisenby’s other arguments are unavailing. He first","paragraphs":["para_485","para_486","para_487"]},{"title":"Lisenby Br. 22. The Supreme Court has held that, in some","paragraphs":["para_489","para_490","para_491"]},{"title":"579 U.S. 176, 181 (2016). Liability can arise under this theory","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"17","paragraphs":["para_494","para_495","para_496","para_497","para_498","para_499","para_500"]},{"title":"Government’s payment decision.” Id. The Supreme Court’s","paragraphs":["para_502","para_503","para_504","para_505"]},{"title":"Guilfoile v. Shields, 913 F.3d 178, 188 (1st Cir. 2019)","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(distinguishing between the standards for a qui tam claim under","paragraphs":["para_508","para_509"]},{"title":"United States ex rel. Wilson, 545 U.S. 409, 416 n.1 (2005)","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(noting that “proving a violation of § 3729 is not an element of","paragraphs":["para_512"]},{"title":"Here, Lisenby contends that Olympus defrauded the","paragraphs":["para_514","para_515","para_516","para_517","para_518","para_519","para_520"]},{"title":"Br. 25. Yet Lisenby appears to misapprehend the relevant legal","paragraphs":["para_522","para_523","para_524","para_525"]},{"title":"18","paragraphs":["para_527"]},{"title":"188 (noting how the standards for a qui tam claim and","paragraphs":["para_529","para_530","para_531","para_532","para_533","para_534","para_535","para_536"]},{"title":"Lisenby also relies on the Court of Appeals for the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"District of Columbia Circuit’s opinion in Singletary for the","paragraphs":["para_539","para_540","para_541"]},{"title":"The plaintiff in Singletary worked as a veterinarian in a","paragraphs":["para_543"]},{"title":"939 F.3d at 291, 293. According to the complaint, the","paragraphs":["para_545","para_546","para_547","para_548","para_549","para_550"]},{"title":"United States.” Id. The plaintiff repeatedly informed her","paragraphs":["para_552","para_553","para_554","para_555"]},{"title":"297. The court concluded that these allegations were sufficient","paragraphs":["para_557","para_558"]},{"title":"19","paragraphs":["para_560","para_561","para_562","para_563","para_564","para_565"]},{"title":"Lisenby correctly notes that “magic words” are not","paragraphs":["para_567","para_568"]},{"title":"Complaint demonstrate that Lisenby reported his concerns","paragraphs":["para_570","para_571"]},{"title":"Singletary, the Amended Complaint lacks any allegations","paragraphs":["para_573","para_574","para_575","para_576","para_577"]},{"title":"Lisenby further contends that the District Court","paragraphs":["para_579","para_580","para_581","para_582","para_583","para_584"]},{"title":"Amended Complaint suggests that Lisenby believed that","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Olympus had made, or would make, false claims for payment","paragraphs":["para_587","para_588","para_589","para_590"]},{"title":"20","paragraphs":["para_592","para_593","para_594"]},{"title":"For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District","paragraphs":["para_596"]},{"title":"10 As explained above, Lisenby has not sufficiently alleged","paragraphs":["para_598","para_599"]},{"title":"Accordingly, we need not consider whether any such belief","paragraphs":["para_601","para_602"]}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"PRECEDENTIAL","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"No. 25-1480","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"PAUL LISENBY,","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"Appellant","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"OLYMPUS CORP. OF THE AMERICAS; OLYMPUS","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"AMERICA INC.; GYRUS ACMI, INC.","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"On Appeal from the United States District Court","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"(D.C. No. 5:24-cv-01803)","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"District Judge: Honorable Jeffrey L. Schmehl","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"February 9, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"Before: CHAGARES, Chief Judge, SCIRICA* and","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"RENDELL, Circuit Judges","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"* The Honorable Anthony J. Scirica was unavailable to","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"participate in the decision in this case after submission to the","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"2","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"(Opinion Filed: August 4, 2026)","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"______________","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"OPINION OF THE COURT","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"CHAGARES, Chief Judge.","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"Paul Lisenby worked as the Global Head of Product","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"Development for the defendants-appellees Gyrus ACMI, Inc.,","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"Olympus Corporation of the Americas, and Olympus America,","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"Inc. (together, “Olympus”),1 which are United States","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"subsidiaries of a Japanese medical device company. Olympus","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"sells medical devices to the United States government and","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"receives millions of dollars in federal awards every year. Over","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"a two-week period, Lisenby raised concerns that Olympus had","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"violated U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”)","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"regulations with respect to design quality and product testing.","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"Olympus eliminated Lisenby’s position shortly thereafter.","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"Lisenby filed suit against Olympus, alleging, as relevant here,","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"that Olympus had retaliated against him in violation of the","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"False Claims Act (“FCA” or “Act”), 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h).","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"The District Court granted Olympus’s motion to dismiss","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"the Amended Complaint. The court noted that the allegations","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"merits panel. This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) and 3d Cir. I.O.P. 12.1(b).","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"1 The defendants-appellees are wholly-owned subsidiaries of","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"Olympus Corporation, all of which are part of a single","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"enterprise. For ease of reference, we will refer to the","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"defendants-appellees collectively as “Olympus.”","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"3","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"in the Amended Complaint did not connect Lisenby’s concerns","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"about FDA regulatory violations to the submission of false","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"claims for payment to the federal government. The District","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"Court thus concluded that Lisenby failed to allege that he had","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"engaged in protected conduct under the “other efforts” prong","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"of the FCA’s anti-retaliation provision.","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"We have held that Congress’s 2009–2010 amendments","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"to the FCA expanded the scope of the FCA’s anti-retaliation","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"provision to include “other efforts” to stop violations of the","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"Act. United States ex rel. Ascolese v. Shoemaker Constr. Co.,","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"55 F.4th 188, 194–95 (3d Cir. 2022). But we have not yet","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"considered what constitutes protected conduct under the “other","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"efforts” prong of the FCA’s anti-retaliation provision, 31","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"U.S.C. § 3730(h)(1). As explained below, we hold that a","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"plaintiff’s actions constitute protected conduct under the “other","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"efforts” prong of § 3730(h)(1) when they are motivated by an","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"objectively reasonable belief that the employer has submitted,","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"or will submit, false or fraudulent claims for payment to the","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"federal government. The Amended Complaint at issue here","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"lacks allegations of any such belief. We will therefore affirm","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"the District Court’s order.","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"I.2","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"2 We take these facts from the Amended Complaint. At the","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"motion to dismiss stage, we accept all factual allegations as","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"true and construe them in the light most favorable to the","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"plaintiff. Newark Cab Ass’n v. City of Newark, 901 F.3d 146,","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"151 (3d Cir. 2018).","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"4","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"Olympus sells medical devices to the federal","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"government, including the Department of Veteran Affairs","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"(“VA”). The VA is Olympus’s largest customer in the United","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"States, and Olympus America, Inc. receives more than $85","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"million in federal awards each year. Olympus also sells its","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"products to hospitals and other entities that receive Medicare","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"and Medicaid reimbursements. Lisenby worked as Olympus’s","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"Global Head of Product Development between May 2022 and","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"March 2024. In this position, Lisenby was not responsible for","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"investigating fraud or compliance issues. He was, however,","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"knowledgeable about the requirements for FDA approval of","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"medical devices.","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"During an approximately two-week period in early","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"2024, Lisenby complained to other Olympus employees that","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"Olympus was violating FDA regulations.3 Lisenby’s concerns","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"stemmed from his investigation of the failure of an Olympus","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"product called the Quick-Clip Pro 2 (“QCP2”). Lisenby","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"discovered systemic issues in Olympus’s “design approach and","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"quality management system related to already-sold products,”","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"including “inadequate sample test sizes, insufficient design","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"validations, inadequate supplier controls, [and] a lack of test","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"method validations.” Joint Appendix (“App.”) 7. Lisenby also","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"found a lack of quality management controls and testing to","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"ensure that the product was safe for clinical use in patients.","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"3 The Amended Complaint alleges that Lisenby raised other","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"concerns during his tenure at Olympus. On appeal, Lisenby","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"“limits the issue of protected activity to his efforts to stop","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"systemic FDA violations in the weeks leading up to his","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"termination.” Lisenby Br. 5 n.2. We will therefore consider","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"only the allegations with respect to Lisenby’s actions between","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"January 21, 2024, and February 13, 2024.","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"5","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"Lisenby’s concerns thus focused on “design quality and non-","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"compliant product testing issues required by FDA regulations.”","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"App. 6. Given these issues, Lisenby “believed that if Olympus","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"were to sell QCP2 in its current state, it would be","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"misrepresenting data to the FDA to obtain approval, as it had","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"done in the past.” App. 7.","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"Lisenby first began sharing his concerns in late January","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"2024. These communications were made outside of his chain","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"of command. Lisenby first met with Gabriela Kaynor, the","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"Global Head of Olympus’s Therapeutic Solutions Division at","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"that time. He told Kaynor about Olympus’s “systemic failures","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"to comply with FDA testing and regulatory standards in its","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"product development process [and] inadequate training of","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"engineers to follow FDA regulatory and testing standards.”","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"App. 7. He also shared his “serious concerns” about","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"“Olympus’[s] medical devices that had already been launched","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"in the market that did not comply [with] FDA regulatory","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"standards and had been shown to cause patient harm.” App. 7–","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"8. A few days later, Lisenby discussed the same concerns in a","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"meeting with Mike Callaghan, the Vice President and General","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"Manager of the GI Endo-Therapy Business Unit. Callaghan","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"told Lisenby that selling non-compliant products was “not his","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"call” because the responsibility rested with a quality control","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"department in Japan. App. 8.","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"Lisenby then emailed Andre Roggan, his direct","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"supervisor, and Tomohisa Sakurai, Olympus’s Deputy Chief","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"Technology Officer (“CTO”), about a design methodology","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"called Design for Six Sigma (“DFSS”). He noted that quality","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"and compliance issues existed in Japan, Europe, and the United","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"States. Lisenby suggested that Olympus could use DFSS to","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"address these systemic issues in product design procedure,","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"6","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"comply with FDA requirements, and manage patient safety","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"risks. Lisenby further stated that he “believe[d] DFSS would","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"ultimately address the major sticking points [Olympus was]","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"having with the FDA.” App. 9.","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"Lisenby also shared his concerns at the CTO","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"Management Committee meetings between January 29, 2024,","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"and February 2, 2024. He added a session about DFSS to the","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"agenda, during which he proposed DFSS as a possible solution","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"to the systemic issues that he had observed. He explained how","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"DFSS was “a way to eliminate [Olympus’s] systemic FDA","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"compliance failures and ensure products were designed to","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"address patient safety risks.” App. 9–10. The other meeting","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"attendees acknowledged Lisenby’s findings but informed him","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"that he needed Roggan’s approval to implement his proposed","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"changes. Roggan later told Lisenby that a research and","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"development committee should pre-screen DFSS.","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"A little over a week after the CTO meetings, Lisenby","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"met with Eric Rainis, the Global Vice President of Quality","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"Design and Assurance. Lisenby told Rainis about Olympus’s","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"“inadequate complaint handling system” and how Olympus","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"lacked adequate product testing to ensure patient safety. App.","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"10. He also discussed his concern that Olympus did not have","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"a quality assurance entity in Japan to ensure compliance with","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"FDA regulatory standards. Rainis agreed with Lisenby’s","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"concerns but explained that procedural issues in Japan were not","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"within the scope of his responsibilities. The next day, Lisenby","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"met with Todd Brill, the Senior Vice President of Regulatory","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"Affairs. Lisenby discussed his concerns about Olympus’s","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"“failure to comply with FDA standards” that, in turn,","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"“impacted patient safety and caused patient harm.” App. 11.","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"He again proposed using DFSS as a possible solution.","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"7","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"The day after Lisenby met with Brill, Roggan told","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"Lisenby that his position had been eliminated. Olympus did","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"not eliminate any other positions during this time. Lisenby","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"subsequently filed a lawsuit against Olympus, asserting a","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"retaliation claim under the False Claims Act as well as claims","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law and Florida","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"Private Whistleblowers Act. Olympus moved to dismiss the","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"Complaint for failure to state a claim, and Lisenby amended","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"the Complaint. Olympus then filed another motion to dismiss","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"The District Court granted Olympus’s motion,","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"dismissing both the FCA retaliation claim and the state law","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"claims.4 The District Court noted that this Court has not yet","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"considered what constitutes protected conduct under the “other","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"efforts” prong of the FCA’s anti-retaliation provision. The","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"court thus concluded that a plaintiff “must demonstrate a nexus","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"between his actions and that his employer knowingly","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"submitted or planned to submit a false or fraudulent claim to","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"the government for payment.” App. 107. Because Lisenby did","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"not connect his internal warnings about Olympus’s alleged","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"FDA regulatory violations to a specific FCA violation, the","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"District Court held that Lisenby had not sufficiently alleged","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"protected conduct. The District Court therefore dismissed","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"Lisenby’s retaliation claim with prejudice.5 Lisenby timely","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"4 Lisenby does not challenge on appeal the District Court’s","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"dismissal of the state law claims.","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"5 The District Court did not explain why dismissal with","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"prejudice was warranted. But on appeal, Lisenby does not","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"challenge the District Court’s analysis — or lack thereof — as","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"to why the FCA retaliation claim was dismissed with prejudice.","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"8","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"appealed.","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"II.6","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"On appeal, Lisenby challenges the District Court’s","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"dismissal of his retaliation claim under the False Claims Act.","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"We first describe the relevant parts of that statute. Next, we","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"consider two questions of first impression for this Court:","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"whether a retaliation claim under the False Claims Act, 31","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"Nor does he contend, in the alternative, that he should be given","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"leave to further amend the Amended Complaint. Even if","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"Lisenby had raised such an argument before us, that argument","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"would fail because he did not move for leave to file a Second","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"Amended Complaint before the District Court. See Fletcher-","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, Inc., 482 F.3d 247,","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"253 (3d Cir. 2007) (“[I]n ordinary civil litigation it is hardly","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"error for a district court to enter final judgment after granting a","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss when the plaintiff has not","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"properly requested leave to amend its complaint.”).","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"6 The District Court had jurisdiction over Lisenby’s FCA claim","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and we have jurisdiction under","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review of a district","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Bah","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"v. United States, 91 F.4th 116, 119 (3d Cir. 2024). To survive","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiff must allege","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"9","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"U.S.C. § 3730(h), is subject to the particularity requirement of","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b); and what constitutes","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"protected conduct under the “other efforts” prong of a False","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"Claims Act retaliation claim. We hold that a False Claims Act","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"retaliation claim is not subject to the Rule 9(b) particularity","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"requirement. We also hold that to engage in protected “other","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"efforts” conduct under § 3730(h)(1), the plaintiff must have","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"held an objectively reasonable belief that his or her employer","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"was violating or was about to violate the FCA. Applying the","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"proper standard here, the Amended Complaint fails to allege","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"that Lisenby engaged in conduct protected by the “other","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"efforts” prong of § 3730(h)(1). We will therefore affirm the","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"District Court’s order dismissing Lisenby’s FCA retaliation","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"claim.","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"A.","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"The False Claims Act imposes liability on any person","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"who “knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, [to the","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"federal government] a false or fraudulent claim for payment or","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"approval.” 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A). The FCA provides two","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"ways of initiating an action. Hutchins v. Wilentz, Goldman &","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"Spitzer, 253 F.3d 176, 181–82 (3d Cir. 2001). The government","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"may file suit to recover damages stemming from fraudulent","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"claims. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(a); Hutchins, 253 F.3d at 181. A","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"private plaintiff may also file a qui tam suit on the","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"government’s behalf and, if successful, retain up to thirty","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"percent of the funds recovered. 31 U.S.C. §§ 3730(b)(1),","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"(d)(2); Hutchins, 253 F.3d at 181–82.","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"The FCA contains an anti-retaliation provision that","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"shields employee whistleblowers from retaliation “because of”","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"conduct protected by the Act. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h)(1). To state","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"10","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"a retaliation claim under the FCA, a plaintiff must allege that","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"he (1) engaged in protected conduct, and (2) was discriminated","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"against because of his protected conduct. DiFiore v. CSL","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"Behring, LLC, 879 F.3d 71, 76 (3d Cir. 2018) (citing Hutchins,","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"253 F.3d at 186). A plaintiff must also show that his employer","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"was on notice that he was engaged in protected conduct, United","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"States ex rel. Ascolese v. Shoemaker Constr. Co., 55 F.4th 188,","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"194–95 (3d Cir. 2022), and that the protected conduct was the","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"“but-for” cause of the employer’s retaliation, DiFiore, 879 F.3d","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"at 78. The FCA’s anti-retaliation provision identifies two","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"categories of protected conduct. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h)(1).","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"Section 3730(h)(1) protects employees from retaliation for","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"“lawful acts done . . . in furtherance of” either “an action [under","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"the FCA]” or “other efforts to stop 1 or more violations of” the","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"FCA. Id. This appeal involves only the “other efforts” prong.","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"Before considering the merits, we must first determine","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"what pleading standard governs an FCA retaliation claim.","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires only “a short and","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Federal Rule of Civil","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"Procedure 9(b), by contrast, requires claims involving","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"allegations of fraud to be pled with particularity. Fed. R. Civ.","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"P. 9(b).","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"A person is liable under the FCA for, among other","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"things, “knowingly present[ing], or caus[ing] to be presented,","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval” to the","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"federal government. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A). FCA claims","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"are thus subject to Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard.","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"See Foglia v. Renal Ventures Mgmt., LLC, 754 F.3d 153, 155,","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"157–58 (3d Cir. 2014) (determining whether the plaintiff’s","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"allegations with respect to his FCA claim satisfy the Rule 9(b)","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"11","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"standard). Retaliation claims under the FCA do not, however,","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"involve allegations of fraud. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h)(1)","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"(imposing liability on employers that “discriminate[] against”","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"an employee “because of lawful acts done . . . in furtherance of","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"an action under [the FCA] or other efforts to stop 1 or more","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"violations” of the FCA). Accordingly, we hold that allegations","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"with respect to an FCA retaliation claim need only satisfy Rule","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"8(a)’s notice pleading standard.7","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"We turn now to the question of what constitutes","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"protected conduct under the “other efforts” prong of","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"§ 3730(h)(1). This Court’s decision in Ascolese recognized","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"that Congress’s 2009–2010 amendments to the FCA expanded","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"the anti-retaliation provision to include “other efforts to stop 1","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"or more violations of” the Act. 55 F.4th at 195 (quoting 31","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"U.S.C. § 3730(h)(1)). But this Court has not yet had an","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"opportunity to determine the legal standard for protected","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"conduct under the “other efforts” prong of the FCA’s anti-","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"retaliation provision. We will do so here.","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"7 This conclusion is consistent with the decision of every other","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"Court of Appeals to have addressed this issue. See United","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":"States ex rel. Sibley v. Univ. of Chi. Med. Ctr., 44 F.4th 646,","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"661–62 (7th Cir. 2022); United States ex rel. Chorches v. Am.","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"Med. Response, Inc., 865 F.3d 71, 95 (2d Cir. 2017); Smith v.","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"Clark/Smoot/Russell, 796 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir. 2015);","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1103","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"(9th Cir. 2008); United States ex rel. Williams v. Martin-Baker","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"Aircraft Co., 389 F.3d 1251, 1259 (D.C. Cir. 2004); United","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"States ex rel. Karvelas v. Melrose-Wakefield Hosp., 360 F.3d","paragraph_id":"para_329"},{"text":"220, 238 n.23 (1st Cir. 2004), abrogated on other grounds by","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"Allison Engine Co. v. United States ex rel. Sanders, 553 U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"662 (2008).","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"12","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"We first conclude that to state a retaliation claim under","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"the “other efforts” prong of § 3730(h)(1), a plaintiff’s actions","paragraph_id":"para_335"},{"text":"must be connected to a violation of the FCA. That is, a","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"plaintiff’s conduct must be related to the submission of a false","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"or fraudulent claim to the federal government for payment or","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"approval. The text of the FCA plainly requires this nexus.","paragraph_id":"para_339"},{"text":"Section 3730(h)(1) protects employees from retaliation for","paragraph_id":"para_340"},{"text":"“lawful acts done . . . in furtherance of . . . other efforts to stop","paragraph_id":"para_341"},{"text":"1 or more violations of this subchapter.” 31 U.S.C.","paragraph_id":"para_342"},{"text":"§ 3730(h)(1) (emphasis added). Because the text of the statute","paragraph_id":"para_343"},{"text":"is clear, we need not look any further. See Hartford","paragraph_id":"para_344"},{"text":"Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 530 U.S.","paragraph_id":"para_345"},{"text":"1, 6 (2000).","paragraph_id":"para_346"},{"text":"This conclusion is in accord with the decisions of","paragraph_id":"para_347"},{"text":"several of our sister Courts of Appeals. See, e.g., Hickman v.","paragraph_id":"para_348"},{"text":"Spirit of Athens, Ala., Inc., 985 F.3d 1284, 1289 (11th Cir.","paragraph_id":"para_349"},{"text":"2021) (noting that plaintiffs “are, at a minimum, required to","paragraph_id":"para_350"},{"text":"show that the activity they were fired over had something to do","paragraph_id":"para_351"},{"text":"with the False Claims Act—or at least that a reasonable person","paragraph_id":"para_352"},{"text":"might have thought so”); Singletary v. Howard Univ., 939 F.3d","paragraph_id":"para_353"},{"text":"287, 296 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (“[T]he [“other efforts”] prong . . .","paragraph_id":"para_354"},{"text":"requires that the employee’s efforts pertain to fraud in","paragraph_id":"para_355"},{"text":"connection with the submission of a claim for federal","paragraph_id":"para_356"},{"text":"government funds.”); United States ex rel. Reed v. KeyPoint","paragraph_id":"para_357"},{"text":"Gov’t Sols., 923 F.3d 729, 767 (10th Cir. 2019) (explaining","paragraph_id":"para_358"},{"text":"that a plaintiff’s actions must be connected to the FCA); United","paragraph_id":"para_359"},{"text":"States ex rel. Grant v. United Airlines, Inc., 912 F.3d 190, 202","paragraph_id":"para_360"},{"text":"(4th Cir. 2018) (“[W]hile the plaintiff’s actions need not lead","paragraph_id":"para_361"},{"text":"to a viable FCA action[,] . . . they must still have a nexus to an","paragraph_id":"para_362"},{"text":"FCA violation.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).","paragraph_id":"para_363"},{"text":"Accordingly, a plaintiff has not engaged in protected conduct","paragraph_id":"para_364"},{"text":"under the “other efforts” prong if his actions pertain only to","paragraph_id":"para_365"},{"text":"13","paragraph_id":"para_366"},{"text":"reporting statutory or regulatory noncompliance without some","paragraph_id":"para_367"},{"text":"additional connection to an FCA violation.","paragraph_id":"para_368"},{"text":"We also hold that to engage in conduct protected by the","paragraph_id":"para_369"},{"text":"“other efforts” prong of § 3730(h)(1), a plaintiff must, in good","paragraph_id":"para_370"},{"text":"faith, have held an objectively reasonable belief that his","paragraph_id":"para_371"},{"text":"employer was violating, or would violate, the FCA.8 This","paragraph_id":"para_372"},{"text":"standard sets a relatively low bar that coheres with Congress’s","paragraph_id":"para_373"},{"text":"intent to expand the scope of the FCA’s anti-retaliation","paragraph_id":"para_374"},{"text":"provision to protect employees’ “‘efforts to stop’ violations of","paragraph_id":"para_375"},{"text":"the statute before they happen or recur.” Ascolese, 55 F.4th at","paragraph_id":"para_376"},{"text":"194 (quoting Singletary, 939 F.3d at 296); see also Singletary,","paragraph_id":"para_377"},{"text":"939 F.3d at 296 (noting that the “other efforts” prong is","paragraph_id":"para_378"},{"text":"“preventative”).9 This holding is consistent with the decisions","paragraph_id":"para_379"},{"text":"8 The parties agree that this Court should adopt an objectively","paragraph_id":"para_380"},{"text":"reasonable belief standard for retaliation claims under the","paragraph_id":"para_381"},{"text":"FCA.","paragraph_id":"para_382"},{"text":"9 The objective reasonableness standard also comports with","paragraph_id":"para_383"},{"text":"how this Court has interpreted anti-retaliation provisions in","paragraph_id":"para_384"},{"text":"other statutes. The FCA is one of several federal statutes that","paragraph_id":"para_385"},{"text":"protect whistleblowers from retaliation. See, e.g., Title VII of","paragraph_id":"para_386"},{"text":"the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a);","paragraph_id":"para_387"},{"text":"Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C.","paragraph_id":"para_388"},{"text":"§ 12203(a); Age Discrimination in Employment Act","paragraph_id":"para_389"},{"text":"(“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 623(d); Emergency Medical","paragraph_id":"para_390"},{"text":"Treatment and Labor Act (“EMTALA”), 42 U.S.C.","paragraph_id":"para_391"},{"text":"§ 1395dd(i). This Court has applied an objectively reasonable","paragraph_id":"para_392"},{"text":"belief standard to retaliation claims under each of those","paragraph_id":"para_393"},{"text":"statutes. See Moore v. City of Philadelphia, 461 F.3d 331, 341","paragraph_id":"para_394"},{"text":"(3d Cir. 2006) (holding that to state a Title VII retaliation","paragraph_id":"para_395"},{"text":"claim, an “employee must hold an objectively reasonable","paragraph_id":"para_396"},{"text":"14","paragraph_id":"para_397"},{"text":"of several other Courts of Appeals, each of which have adopted","paragraph_id":"para_398"},{"text":"an objective reasonableness standard for retaliation claims","paragraph_id":"para_399"},{"text":"under the “other efforts” prong of the FCA’s anti-retaliation","paragraph_id":"para_400"},{"text":"provision. See, e.g., Mooney v. Fife, 118 F.4th 1081, 1092 (9th","paragraph_id":"para_401"},{"text":"Cir. 2024); Singletary, 939 F.3d at 296; United States ex rel.","paragraph_id":"para_402"},{"text":"Strubbe v. Crawford Cnty. Mem’l Hosp., 915 F.3d 1158, 1167","paragraph_id":"para_403"},{"text":"(8th Cir. 2019); Grant, 912 F.3d at 201–02; United States ex","paragraph_id":"para_404"},{"text":"rel. Uhlig v. Fluor Corp., 839 F.3d 628, 635 (7th Cir. 2016).","paragraph_id":"para_405"},{"text":"This standard consists of both a subjective component and an","paragraph_id":"para_406"},{"text":"objective component. The subjective component requires the","paragraph_id":"para_407"},{"text":"employee to believe, in good faith, that his employer is","paragraph_id":"para_408"},{"text":"violating, or will soon violate, the FCA. The objective","paragraph_id":"para_409"},{"text":"component asks whether a reasonable employee in the same or","paragraph_id":"para_410"},{"text":"similar circumstances would believe that the employer is","paragraph_id":"para_411"},{"text":"submitting, or will submit, false claims for payment to the","paragraph_id":"para_412"},{"text":"belief, in good faith, that the activity they oppose is unlawful","paragraph_id":"para_413"},{"text":"under Title VII”); Williams v. Phila. Hous. Auth. Police Dep’t,","paragraph_id":"para_414"},{"text":"380 F.3d 751, 759 n.2 (3d Cir. 2004) (noting that an ADA","paragraph_id":"para_415"},{"text":"retaliation claim requires the plaintiff to have a “reasonable,","paragraph_id":"para_416"},{"text":"good faith belief that she was entitled to request the reasonable","paragraph_id":"para_417"},{"text":"accommodation she requested”), superseded by statute on","paragraph_id":"para_418"},{"text":"other grounds, ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No.","paragraph_id":"para_419"},{"text":"110-325, 122 Stat. 3553, as recognized in Robinson v. First","paragraph_id":"para_420"},{"text":"State Cmty. Action Agency, 920 F.3d 182, 188 n.30 (3d Cir.","paragraph_id":"para_421"},{"text":"2019); Daniels v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 776 F.3d 181, 192–94","paragraph_id":"para_422"},{"text":"(3d Cir. 2015) (applying the “objectively reasonable belief”","paragraph_id":"para_423"},{"text":"standard to retaliation claims under the ADEA); Gillispie v.","paragraph_id":"para_424"},{"text":"RegionalCare Hosp. Partners, Inc., 892 F.3d 585, 593 (3d Cir.","paragraph_id":"para_425"},{"text":"2018) (holding that to engage in protected conduct under the","paragraph_id":"para_426"},{"text":"EMTALA, a plaintiff “need only establish that [s]he was acting","paragraph_id":"para_427"},{"text":"under a good faith, reasonable belief that a[n] [EMTALA]","paragraph_id":"para_428"},{"text":"violation existed” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).","paragraph_id":"para_429"},{"text":"15","paragraph_id":"para_430"},{"text":"government. By ensuring that the employee not only believes,","paragraph_id":"para_431"},{"text":"but reasonably believes, that his employer is violating the FCA,","paragraph_id":"para_432"},{"text":"the objectively reasonable belief standard balances the two","paragraph_id":"para_433"},{"text":"aims of the FCA: “preventing opportunistic suits” and","paragraph_id":"para_434"},{"text":"“encouraging citizens to act as whistleblowers.” See United","paragraph_id":"para_435"},{"text":"States ex rel. LaCorte v. SmithKline Beecham Clinical Lab’ys,","paragraph_id":"para_436"},{"text":"Inc., 149 F.3d 227, 233 (3d Cir. 1998) (explaining how § 3730","paragraph_id":"para_437"},{"text":"“attempts to reconcile two conflicting goals”). We therefore","paragraph_id":"para_438"},{"text":"conclude that protected conduct under the “other efforts” prong","paragraph_id":"para_439"},{"text":"requires a plaintiff to hold, in good faith, an objectively","paragraph_id":"para_440"},{"text":"reasonable belief that his or her employer is violating, or will","paragraph_id":"para_441"},{"text":"violate, the FCA.","paragraph_id":"para_442"},{"text":"B.","paragraph_id":"para_443"},{"text":"We turn now to the allegations in the Amended","paragraph_id":"para_444"},{"text":"Complaint. At the motion to dismiss stage, Lisenby must","paragraph_id":"para_445"},{"text":"allege facts that, when viewed in his favor, support an inference","paragraph_id":"para_446"},{"text":"that he believed, and it was objectively reasonable for him to","paragraph_id":"para_447"},{"text":"believe, that Olympus was violating the FCA. The Amended","paragraph_id":"para_448"},{"text":"Complaint fails to allege that Lisenby believed that Olympus","paragraph_id":"para_449"},{"text":"had submitted, or was submitting, false claims for payment to","paragraph_id":"para_450"},{"text":"the federal government. Accordingly, we will affirm the","paragraph_id":"para_451"},{"text":"District Court’s order.","paragraph_id":"para_452"},{"text":"The Amended Complaint does not contain any","paragraph_id":"para_453"},{"text":"allegations from which we may infer that Lisenby believed that","paragraph_id":"para_454"},{"text":"Olympus was violating, or would soon violate, the FCA.","paragraph_id":"para_455"},{"text":"Instead, the Amended Complaint alleges that Lisenby was","paragraph_id":"para_456"},{"text":"concerned about Olympus violating FDA regulations. Lisenby","paragraph_id":"para_457"},{"text":"points to several facts alleged in the Amended Complaint that","paragraph_id":"para_458"},{"text":"he contends demonstrate his belief that Olympus had","paragraph_id":"para_459"},{"text":"committed, or would commit, fraud on the government. These","paragraph_id":"para_460"},{"text":"16","paragraph_id":"para_461"},{"text":"facts include that Olympus is a federal contractor; Olympus","paragraph_id":"para_462"},{"text":"sells its medical devices to hospitals for use in medical","paragraph_id":"para_463"},{"text":"procedures covered by Medicare and Medicaid; Lisenby","paragraph_id":"para_464"},{"text":"discovered systemic deficiencies in Olympus’s design","paragraph_id":"para_465"},{"text":"approach and quality management system that resulted in","paragraph_id":"para_466"},{"text":"violations of FDA regulations; Olympus had already sold","paragraph_id":"para_467"},{"text":"noncompliant products; and Lisenby reported his concerns to","paragraph_id":"para_468"},{"text":"others, providing examples of already-sold products that did","paragraph_id":"para_469"},{"text":"not conform to FDA regulations.","paragraph_id":"para_470"},{"text":"Yet these allegations suggest only that Lisenby was","paragraph_id":"para_471"},{"text":"concerned about Olympus’s alleged FDA regulatory violations","paragraph_id":"para_472"},{"text":"and the attendant risks to patient safety, not fraud committed","paragraph_id":"para_473"},{"text":"against the government. For example, the Amended","paragraph_id":"para_474"},{"text":"Complaint alleges that Lisenby “raised concerns regarding","paragraph_id":"para_475"},{"text":"design quality and non-compliant product testing issues","paragraph_id":"para_476"},{"text":"required by FDA regulations” during the CTO meetings. App.","paragraph_id":"para_477"},{"text":"6. His concerns focused on “a lack of product safety,” “FDA","paragraph_id":"para_478"},{"text":"compliance issues,” and “patient safety risks.” App. 7–8. At","paragraph_id":"para_479"},{"text":"no point does the Amended Complaint connect Lisenby’s","paragraph_id":"para_480"},{"text":"concerns about FDA regulatory violations and safety risks to a","paragraph_id":"para_481"},{"text":"belief that Olympus was submitting false claims for payment","paragraph_id":"para_482"},{"text":"to the federal government.","paragraph_id":"para_483"},{"text":"Lisenby’s other arguments are unavailing. He first","paragraph_id":"para_484"},{"text":"contends that “it was objectively reasonable for Lisenby to","paragraph_id":"para_485"},{"text":"believe that Olympus violated the FCA” because the implied","paragraph_id":"para_486"},{"text":"false certification theory provides a basis for FCA liability.","paragraph_id":"para_487"},{"text":"Lisenby Br. 22. The Supreme Court has held that, in some","paragraph_id":"para_488"},{"text":"circumstances, the implied false certification theory can","paragraph_id":"para_489"},{"text":"provide a basis for liability under the False Claims Act.","paragraph_id":"para_490"},{"text":"Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar,","paragraph_id":"para_491"},{"text":"579 U.S. 176, 181 (2016). Liability can arise under this theory","paragraph_id":"para_492"},{"text":"17","paragraph_id":"para_493"},{"text":"when a defendant submits a claim for payment and “knowingly","paragraph_id":"para_494"},{"text":"fails to disclose [its] noncompliance with a statutory,","paragraph_id":"para_495"},{"text":"regulatory, or contractual requirement,” rendering its specific","paragraph_id":"para_496"},{"text":"representations about the goods or services misleading. Id. A","paragraph_id":"para_497"},{"text":"claim premised on this theory is actionable under the FCA only","paragraph_id":"para_498"},{"text":"if “[a] misrepresentation about compliance with a statutory,","paragraph_id":"para_499"},{"text":"regulatory, or contractual requirement [is] material to the","paragraph_id":"para_500"},{"text":"Government’s payment decision.” Id. The Supreme Court’s","paragraph_id":"para_501"},{"text":"decision in Universal Health was limited to the FCA’s qui tam","paragraph_id":"para_502"},{"text":"provision and did not address its anti-retaliation provision. See","paragraph_id":"para_503"},{"text":"id. at 184–87 (concluding that the implied false certification","paragraph_id":"para_504"},{"text":"theory can provide a basis for a qui tam suit). See also","paragraph_id":"para_505"},{"text":"Guilfoile v. Shields, 913 F.3d 178, 188 (1st Cir. 2019)","paragraph_id":"para_506"},{"text":"(distinguishing between the standards for a qui tam claim under","paragraph_id":"para_507"},{"text":"31 U.S.C. § 3730(b) and a retaliation claim under 31 U.S.C.","paragraph_id":"para_508"},{"text":"§ 3730(h)); Graham Cnty. Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v.","paragraph_id":"para_509"},{"text":"United States ex rel. Wilson, 545 U.S. 409, 416 n.1 (2005)","paragraph_id":"para_510"},{"text":"(noting that “proving a violation of § 3729 is not an element of","paragraph_id":"para_511"},{"text":"a § 3730(h) [retaliation] cause of action”).","paragraph_id":"para_512"},{"text":"Here, Lisenby contends that Olympus defrauded the","paragraph_id":"para_513"},{"text":"government by falsely certifying that it had satisfied FDA","paragraph_id":"para_514"},{"text":"regulations, compliance with which is allegedly a material","paragraph_id":"para_515"},{"text":"condition of payment by the federal government. According","paragraph_id":"para_516"},{"text":"to Lisenby, “misrepresenting data to the FDA can lead to a","paragraph_id":"para_517"},{"text":"violation of the FCA’s qui tam provision, [so] an employee’s","paragraph_id":"para_518"},{"text":"observation that this type of misconduct was occurring easily","paragraph_id":"para_519"},{"text":"satisfies the lower standard of a reasonable belief.” Lisenby","paragraph_id":"para_520"},{"text":"Br. 25. Yet Lisenby appears to misapprehend the relevant legal","paragraph_id":"para_521"},{"text":"standard. As explained above, a retaliation claim under the","paragraph_id":"para_522"},{"text":"“other efforts” prong requires a plaintiff to reasonably believe","paragraph_id":"para_523"},{"text":"that his employer was committing fraud against the federal","paragraph_id":"para_524"},{"text":"government. That inquiry is distinct from the test for","paragraph_id":"para_525"},{"text":"18","paragraph_id":"para_526"},{"text":"substantive liability under the FCA. See Guilfoile, 913 F.3d at","paragraph_id":"para_527"},{"text":"188 (noting how the standards for a qui tam claim and","paragraph_id":"para_528"},{"text":"retaliation claim under the FCA differ). At issue on appeal is","paragraph_id":"para_529"},{"text":"an FCA retaliation claim, not a qui tam claim. Even if we","paragraph_id":"para_530"},{"text":"assume that Olympus would be liable under the implied false","paragraph_id":"para_531"},{"text":"certification theory, Lisenby has not alleged that he believed","paragraph_id":"para_532"},{"text":"that Olympus was committing fraud against the federal","paragraph_id":"para_533"},{"text":"government — a necessary element of an FCA retaliation","paragraph_id":"para_534"},{"text":"claim. Lisenby’s reliance on the implied false certification","paragraph_id":"para_535"},{"text":"theory thus cannot fill the gaps in the Amended Complaint.","paragraph_id":"para_536"},{"text":"Lisenby also relies on the Court of Appeals for the","paragraph_id":"para_537"},{"text":"District of Columbia Circuit’s opinion in Singletary for the","paragraph_id":"para_538"},{"text":"proposition that “a regulatory violation can give rise to a","paragraph_id":"para_539"},{"text":"reasonable belief of an FCA violation.” Lisenby Br. 25–26.","paragraph_id":"para_540"},{"text":"Yet the facts of the Singletary decision are distinguishable.","paragraph_id":"para_541"},{"text":"The plaintiff in Singletary worked as a veterinarian in a","paragraph_id":"para_542"},{"text":"university’s research laboratory that received federal funding.","paragraph_id":"para_543"},{"text":"939 F.3d at 291, 293. According to the complaint, the","paragraph_id":"para_544"},{"text":"university made annual certifications to the National Institutes","paragraph_id":"para_545"},{"text":"of Health (“NIH”) and other federal agencies that the","paragraph_id":"para_546"},{"text":"laboratory animals were cared for in accordance with federal","paragraph_id":"para_547"},{"text":"regulations. Id. at 298. The plaintiff alleged that those","paragraph_id":"para_548"},{"text":"certifications “were necessary for [the University] to receive","paragraph_id":"para_549"},{"text":"and retain the grant monies that [it] in fact received from the","paragraph_id":"para_550"},{"text":"United States.” Id. The plaintiff repeatedly informed her","paragraph_id":"para_551"},{"text":"supervisor that the laboratory was not complying with NIH","paragraph_id":"para_552"},{"text":"standards and that its noncompliance “constituted violations of","paragraph_id":"para_553"},{"text":"the terms and conditions under which [the University] received","paragraph_id":"para_554"},{"text":"grant money from NIH and the federal government.” Id. at","paragraph_id":"para_555"},{"text":"297. The court concluded that these allegations were sufficient","paragraph_id":"para_556"},{"text":"to allege protected activity under the “other efforts” prong of","paragraph_id":"para_557"},{"text":"§ 3730(h)(1). Id. at 297–99. The court noted that the","paragraph_id":"para_558"},{"text":"19","paragraph_id":"para_559"},{"text":"plaintiff’s concerns, as alleged in the complaint, “did not","paragraph_id":"para_560"},{"text":"accuse the University of fraud in terms.” Id. at 298. The court","paragraph_id":"para_561"},{"text":"nevertheless concluded that the plaintiff “had an objectively","paragraph_id":"para_562"},{"text":"reasonable belief that the University was or would soon be","paragraph_id":"para_563"},{"text":"submitting false certifications of its compliance with animal","paragraph_id":"para_564"},{"text":"welfare requirements in connection with funding claims.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_565"},{"text":"Lisenby correctly notes that “magic words” are not","paragraph_id":"para_566"},{"text":"required to state an FCA retaliation claim. Lisenby Br. 36. Yet","paragraph_id":"para_567"},{"text":"he acknowledges that “[t]he facts alleged in the Amended","paragraph_id":"para_568"},{"text":"Complaint demonstrate that Lisenby reported his concerns","paragraph_id":"para_569"},{"text":"about Olympus’[s] systemic failures to comply with FDA","paragraph_id":"para_570"},{"text":"standards.” Lisenby Br. 38. And here, unlike the plaintiff in","paragraph_id":"para_571"},{"text":"Singletary, the Amended Complaint lacks any allegations","paragraph_id":"para_572"},{"text":"connecting Lisenby’s concerns about FDA regulatory","paragraph_id":"para_573"},{"text":"violations to a belief that Olympus was committing fraud","paragraph_id":"para_574"},{"text":"against the government. Absent allegations supporting such a","paragraph_id":"para_575"},{"text":"nexus, Lisenby has failed to state a retaliation claim under the","paragraph_id":"para_576"},{"text":"“other efforts” prong.","paragraph_id":"para_577"},{"text":"Lisenby further contends that the District Court","paragraph_id":"para_578"},{"text":"“improper[ly] narrow[ed]” his allegations of protected activity","paragraph_id":"para_579"},{"text":"in the Amended Complaint. Lisenby Br. 27. He asserts that","paragraph_id":"para_580"},{"text":"the District Court failed to acknowledge his allegations that","paragraph_id":"para_581"},{"text":"“Olympus was already selling products to the government that","paragraph_id":"para_582"},{"text":"failed to comply with FDA regulations.” Lisenby Br. 28. But","paragraph_id":"para_583"},{"text":"even if we assume that those allegations are true, nothing in the","paragraph_id":"para_584"},{"text":"Amended Complaint suggests that Lisenby believed that","paragraph_id":"para_585"},{"text":"Olympus had made, or would make, false claims for payment","paragraph_id":"para_586"},{"text":"with respect to those products. The Amended Complaint","paragraph_id":"para_587"},{"text":"focuses on concerns about regulatory violations and patient","paragraph_id":"para_588"},{"text":"safety, not false claims for payment. Lisenby has thus failed","paragraph_id":"para_589"},{"text":"to state a retaliation claim under the “other efforts” prong of","paragraph_id":"para_590"},{"text":"20","paragraph_id":"para_591"},{"text":"§ 3730(h)(1).10 We will therefore affirm the District Court’s","paragraph_id":"para_592"},{"text":"order.","paragraph_id":"para_593"},{"text":"III.","paragraph_id":"para_594"},{"text":"For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District","paragraph_id":"para_595"},{"text":"Court’s order dismissing the FCA retaliation claim.","paragraph_id":"para_596"},{"text":"10 As explained above, Lisenby has not sufficiently alleged","paragraph_id":"para_597"},{"text":"that he believed that Olympus was submitting false or","paragraph_id":"para_598"},{"text":"fraudulent claims to the government for payment.","paragraph_id":"para_599"},{"text":"Accordingly, we need not consider whether any such belief","paragraph_id":"para_600"},{"text":"was objectively reasonable or whether his actions put Olympus","paragraph_id":"para_601"},{"text":"on notice of conduct protected under the FCA.","paragraph_id":"para_602"}],"word_count":5113,"cites":["550 U.S. 544","556 U.S. 662","553 U.S.\n662","530 U.S.\n1","579 U.S. 176","545 U.S. 409","55 F.4th 188","901 F.3d 146","482 F.3d 247","91 F.4th 116","253 F.3d 176","879 F.3d 71","754 F.3d 153","44 F.4th 646","865 F.3d 71","796 F.3d 424","521 F.3d 1097","389 F.3d 1251","360 F.3d\n220","985 F.3d 1284","939 F.3d\n287","923 F.3d 729","912 F.3d 190","461 F.3d 331","118 F.4th 1081","915 F.3d 1158","839 F.3d 628","380 F.3d 751","920 F.3d 182","776 F.3d 181","892 F.3d 585","149 F.3d 227","913 F.3d 178"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"2fec6992a9a7d242bcfb30a99e7bb5da4afd22ca2379fa542bab85bd37466531","source_url":"https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/251480p.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-02T02:26:09.183+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca3-25-1480-2026-08-04","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca3-25-1480-2026-08-04","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca3-25-1480-2026-08-04","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca3-25-1480-2026-08-04","verification":{"stored_sha256":"2fec6992a9a7d242bcfb30a99e7bb5da4afd22ca2379fa542bab85bd37466531","recomputed_sha256":"2fec6992a9a7d242bcfb30a99e7bb5da4afd22ca2379fa542bab85bd37466531","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-17T23:25:34.899Z"}},"hash":"sha256:18d0786f2ceb6fb0fdaf57de11b8d23db3aa4a943faa24583e3ecc01ef1108c6","version":"legal-2026-10-17","expires":"2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-17+legal-2026-10-17+2026-10-17T17:42:33","content_hash":"sha256:18d0786f2ceb6fb0fdaf57de11b8d23db3aa4a943faa24583e3ecc01ef1108c6","revalidate_after":"2026-10-18T00:25:35.089Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca3-25-1480-2026-08-04","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca3-25-1480-2026-08-04"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca3-25-1480-2026-08-04"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca3-25-1480-2026-08-04"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-02T09:20:32.645Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aca3-25-1480-2026-08-04&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":27767}}