A WHISTLEBLOWER CASE JUST SURVIVED A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE
Many California employers think of whistleblower and False Claims Act exposure as a federal-contractor problem, something that applies to companies doing business directly with Washington and nobody else. That is too narrow a read of the landscape.
The federal False Claims Act made news this month when the Eleventh Circuit, in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, No. 24- 13581, rejected a constitutional challenge to the statute’s whistleblower, or qui tam, provisions, aligning that circuit with the Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth on the same question. That ruling is persuasive only in California and does not bind the Ninth Circuit or any California state court.
California has its own, independent version of this exposure. California’s False Claims Act, Gov. Code §§ 12650- 12656, allows a private whistleblower to bring a claim on the state’s behalf, and neither that provision nor the retaliation protection below depends on a federal contract.
Gov. Code § 12653 separately prohibits retaliating against an employee for investigating, reporting, or assisting in that kind of case. Whether a specific personnel decision sits too close to a protected report is a fact-specific question, and that question tends to surface inside ordinary termination and discipline disputes, not just headline fraud investigations.
The retaliation piece of this statute does not require the underlying fraud allegation to be proven, which means the exposure can exist even when the employer believes the termination was for unrelated reasons. Whether a specific personnel decision sits too close to a protected report is a fact- specific question, and that is where a no-charge initial consultation is useful.
Contact Michael Trust Law, APC for a no-charge initial consultation. The facts determine what needs to be addressed – and how much of a conversation that takes.
This post shares general information based on common patterns I see in California workplaces. It is not legal advice, does not create an attorney- client relationship, and outcomes depend on specific facts – no lawyer can guarantee a result. Past results do not guarantee or predict future outcomes. AI may have been used to create this post. All content reviewed by a CA attorney before publication.