Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WHISTLEBLOWERS—D.D.C.: Employee fails on FCA claim, but whistleblower claim survives, (Sep 3, 2026)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The employee repeatedly warned that the failure to follow the Defense Information Systems Agency’s best practices would result in “fraud, waste, and abuse.”

On cross-motions for summary judgment, an employer was granted its motion for summary judgment against an employee’s claim for violation of the False Claims Act, ruled a federal district court in the District of Columbia. The court concluded that the employee failed to establish he had engaged in protected activity under the FCA, but did determine that a reasonable jury could find for the employee on his Defense Contractor Whistleblower Protection Act claim. The employee had raised concerns that the head of cybersecurity was trying to circumvent security protections, and thereafter was stripped of telework privileges, reprimanded, placed on administrative leave and ultimately terminated. This was enough for a jury to find that the employee reasonably believed that there was a covered wrongdoing (Jefferson v. Science Applications International Corp. , No. 24-1692 (SLS) (D.D.C. Aug. 26, 2026)).

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) is an independent contractor that contracts with the United States Air Force to provide support and services at a training and simulation center in Germany. The employee was a lead cybersecurity systems administrator for SAIC for approximately 20 months before his termination. He teleworked to give him the flexibility to attend his wife’s medical appointments and to care for his young child.

Concerns raised. In March 2022, the employee raised concerns that the cybersecurity head at that training center was trying to circumvent certain cybersecurity protections and best practices to the detriment of the federal government. Specifically, the cybersecurity head had requested that the employee “create ACAS accounts for him on multiple servers.” The employee responded that he felt uncomfortable deviating from the Defense Information Systems Agency’s policies and requesting written confirmation for the request.

Conflicts continue. Disagreements and conflicts continued between the employee and the cybersecurity head. On April 14, 2024, the employee received a written warning citing standards of conduct, workplace behavior, communication, and conflict resolution as areas of improvement. The employee was also advised that he needed to provide additional doctors’ notes to verify that he was caring for a disabled spouse and small child to justify his telework.

On April 27, 2022, the employer suggested that the employee take paid leave as an opportunity to get away from work and try to set a new course when he returned. On April 28, 2022, the employee began six weeks of FMLA leave. The employee returned from leave on June 13, 2022.

On June 15, 2022, the employee sent an email to SAIC management outlining alleged retaliatory actions by the cybersecurity head and program commander. In response, SAIC drafted a series of reprimand letters for work performance. Soon thereafter, SAIC stripped the employee of his telework privileges, imposed written reprimands, placed him on leave, and ultimately terminated him.

Whistleblower action. The employee filed this whistleblower action against SAIC and SAIC managers, alleging that their conduct violated whistleblower protections in the Defense Contractor Whistleblower Protection Act; the False Claims Act; and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

As an initial matter, the court dismissed the employee’s Sarbanes-Oxley Act claim, which had the effect of dismissing all claims against the individual defendants, leaving SAIC as the only defendant. SAIC sought summary judgment on the employee’s claims under the False Claims Act and the Defense Contractor Whistleblower Protection Act. The employee moved for partial summary judgment on four elements of his Defense Contractor Whistleblower Protection Act claim.

The court granted in part and denied in part SAIC’s motion. It determined that a reasonable jury could find for the employee on his Defense Contractor Whistleblower Protection Act claim but not his False Claims Act claim.

False Claims Act. With regard to the employee’s whistleblower retaliation claim under the False Claims Act, to establish such a claim, “an employee must demonstrate that: (1) he engaged in protected activity, that is, acts done . . . in furtherance of an action under this section; and (2) he was discriminated against because of that activity.” On the first element, “the [False Claims Act] covers two forms of protected activity.” The first is “steps taken antecedent to a False Claims Act proceeding,” i.e., an “investigation” concerning “false or fraudulent statements or records concealing, avoiding, or decreasing an obligation to pay the government.” The second is “lawful acts done in furtherance of other efforts to stop 1 or more violations of” the False Claims Act.

Here, the employee argued that he engaged in both categories of protected activity because he was investigating and “actively trying to stop” violations of the False Claims Act’s conversion provision. To succeed on such a claim, a plaintiff must “identify” some money or “specific excess or recoverable item or other property that [the defendant] possessed but failed to deliver to the government.” The employee had not done so.

The employee complained about certain equipment at the war center. He did not dispute that the equipment that he complained of was not “purchased by or owned by SAIC,” and he conceded that he had no “idea where that equipment came from, and who owns it.” But the undisputed record revealed that the equipment predated SAIC’s contract with the War Center, and SAIC contended that it did not purchase or otherwise provide equipment to the War Center. Thus, the complaint fell well short of what is needed to survive summary judgment. Consequently, the record did not support a False Claims Act claim.

Next, the employee claimed that he engaged in False Claims Act protected activity by complaining of “the scope of [SAIC’s] ACAS scans and accuracy of its corresponding reporting.” He made no attempt to explain how the relevant scans or reporting have any connection to any money or property that SAIC “has possession, custody, or control of” and that would be delivered to the federal government. Nor did he suggest that these scans or reporting were related to any “obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the Government.”

Thus, the court granted summary judgment to SAIC on the employee’s False Claims Act retaliation claim.

Defense Contractor Whistleblower Protection Act. To make out a retaliation claim under the statute, a plaintiff must show that: “(1) he engaged in protected activity . . ., (2) the [relevant] decision maker knew he engaged in protected activity, and (3) his protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse employment action taken against him, unless (4) [the defendant] shows by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the employment action despite [the plaintiff’s] protected activity.”

On this record, a jury could find that the employee made protected disclosures. He repeatedly warned that the failure to follow the Defense Information Systems Agency’s best practices would result in “fraud, waste, and abuse.” Further, he made various complaints that the cybersecurity head, commander of the program, and SAIC management were engaged in retaliation and efforts to circumvent DoD policy. Moreover, an “abuse of authority” under the Act is “[a]n arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority that is inconsistent with the mission of the Department of Defense or the successful performance of a Department contract or grant.” This is enough for a jury to find that the employee reasonably believed that there was a covered wrongdoing at SAIC.

Because there remained factual issues to be resolved, the court denied summary judgment to both parties on the Defense Contractor Whistleblower Protection Act claim.

The case is No. 24-1692 (SLS).

Judge: Sooknanan, S.

Attorneys: Brittany Dillman (Mehri & Skalet) for Marselles Jefferson. Ashley A. Norton (Ogletree Deakins) for Science Applications International Corp., Jeffrey Burdett, Matthew Jamison and Allen C. Johnson.

Companies: Science Applications International Corp.

Cases: Whistleblowers Discrimination Retaliation GovernmentContracts EmployeeLeave DistrictofColumbiaNews