Evans v. Individual Advocacy Group, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied Individual Advocacy Group, Inc.’s renewed Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Tarren Evans’s federal and District of Columbia False Claims Act retaliation claims. The court held that Evans plausibly alleged that the defendant had notice of her protected activity because she reported suspected backdating and compliance violations outside her usual chain of command and connected those concerns to federal funding. The court denied Evans’s Rule 56(d) discovery motion as moot.

Holdings

1. Evans plausibly alleged that IAG knew she was engaging in protected activity because she reported that backdating violated the conditions of federal funding and repeatedly escalated those concerns outside her usual chain of command.
2. The motion to dismiss the federal and D.C. False Claims Act retaliation claims was denied because the amended allegations plausibly stated claims.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Evans plausibly alleged that IAG knew she was engaging in protected activity under the federal and D.C. False Claims Acts.
2. Whether Evans's complaints, including reports outside her ordinary chain of command and allegations connecting backdating to federal funding, overcame the presumption that she was merely performing her job duties.
3. Whether IAG's Rule 12(b)(6) motion should be granted and whether Evans's Rule 56(d) discovery motion should remain pending.

Disposition

denied