<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<upm-export>
	<title>The Rutgers Law Record</title>
	<link>https://lawrecord.com</link>
	<description>The First Digital Law Journal</description>
	<pubDate>Sat Apr 4 4:38:31 2026 / +0000  GMT</pubDate>
	<generator>Universal Post Manager 1.1.2 [ www.ProfProjects.com ] </generator>
	<language></language>
	
			<item>
			<title>PROTECTION TO "INFINITY AND BEYOND": WHY FORMER EMPLOYEES ARE NOT PROTECTED BY THE ANTI-RETALIATION SAFEGUARD OF THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT</title>
			<link>https://lawrecord.com/?p=2432</link>
			<pubDate>Sat Apr 4 4:38:31 2026 / +0000  GMT</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://lawrecord.com/?p=2432</guid>
			<content-encoded><![CDATA[<!-- wp:paragraph {"align":"center"} -->
<p class="has-text-align-center"><span style="font-variant:small-caps;color: #666666;">53 Rutgers L. Rec. 219 (2026)</span> | <a href="http://www.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?cite=53+Rutgers+L.+Rec.+219&FindType=F&ForceAction=Y&SV=Full&RS=ITK3.0&VR=1.0" target=_new title="Open In WestLaw">WestLaw</a> | <a href="http://www.lexis.com/xlink?showcidslinks=on&ORIGINATION_CODE=00142&searchtype=get&search=53 Rutgers L. Rec. 219" target=_new title="Open In LexisNexis">LexisNexis</a> | <a href="http://lawrecord.com/files/53_Rutgers_L_Rec_219.pdf" target=_new>PDF</a></span></p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph {"align":"center"} -->
<p class="has-text-align-center"><strong>0. ABSTRACT&nbsp;</strong></p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>The False Claims Act (FCA) is a significant piece of federal legislation enacted to prevent&nbsp; individuals or companies from engaging in fraudulent activities to fleece government programs.&nbsp; Whistleblowers play a critical role in reporting these fraudulent actions. Unfortunately,&nbsp; whistleblowers often become targets of retaliatory actions either during or after their employment.&nbsp; The FCA's 1986 amendments provided protections to whistleblowers, who are identified as&nbsp; “employees.” The Sixth and Tenth Circuits have disagreed on who is considered an “employee.”&nbsp; The Sixth Circuit has agreed to extend whistleblower protection to former employees whereas the&nbsp; Tenth Circuit has refused to do so.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>Part I of this note introduces the FCA, including the unique <em>qui tam </em>provision and relevant&nbsp; statistics of the Act. Part II explains the history and background of the Act and provides detailed&nbsp; reasonings why the circuit courts disagree as to the scope of the term “employee.” Part III provides&nbsp; justifications why the Sixth Circuit's extension of protection to former employees is problematic.&nbsp; This includes expounding upon how the Sixth Circuit mistakenly determined the anti-retaliation&nbsp; provision was ambiguous, overly relied on overtly broader precedent and ignored legislative intent,&nbsp;</p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p>and failed to use statutory canons to guide its analysis. Part IV addresses counter arguments to&nbsp; extending protection, including the reasons that it would reduce reporting fraud and how most&nbsp; whistleblower protection provisions in other federal statutes are frequently broadly examined by&nbsp; courts. Finally, Part V attempts to provide a new approach to interpreting the word “employee,”&nbsp; including using the economic reality test, which would verify an “employee” as a person who is&nbsp; economically beholden to another.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->

<!-- wp:paragraph -->
<p><a href="https://lawrecord.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/53_Rutgers_L_Rec_219.pdf">View The Entire Article</a></p>
<!-- /wp:paragraph -->]]></content-encoded>
			<excerpt-encoded><![CDATA[]]></excerpt-encoded>
			<wp-post_id>2432</wp-post_id>
			<wp-post_date>2026-04-03 17:39:06</wp-post_date>
			<wp-post_date_gmt>2026-04-04 00:39:06</wp-post_date_gmt>
				</item>
</upm-export>
