“The word ‘direct’ is usually interpreted as ‘marked by absence of intervening agency,’ while ‘independent knowledge’ is not ‘dependent on public disclosure.’”
How later courts described this case
- “The word ‘direct’ is usually interpreted as ‘marked by absence of intervening agency,’ while ‘independent knowledge’ is not ‘dependent on public disclosure.’”
- “In construing the term ‘original source’ other courts have ‘impose[d] a conjunctive requirement – direct and independent – on qui tam plaintiffs.’”
- “An employee must supply sufficient facts from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the employee was discharged because of activities which gave the employer reason to believe that the employee was contemplating a qui tam action against it.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
- “ ‘[A]n employee must supply sufficient facts from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the employee was discharged because of activities which gave the employer reason to believe that the employee was contemplating a qui tam action against it.’ ”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Abrogated on other grounds by U.S. ex rel. Azam Rahimi v. Rite Aid Corp., 3 F.4th 813 (2021)
123 F.3d 935, 940 (6th Cir. 1997) (substantial identity), abrogated on other grounds by United States ex rel. Rahimi v. Rite Aid Corp., 3 F.4th 813
The opinion
ALAN E. NORRIS,
dissenting. Because I would affirm the district court, I respectfully dissent.