Mooney v. Fife, 118 F.4^th 1081 (9^th Cir. 2024)

Thomas Mooney was the chief operating officer of Vivida Dermatology before his employment was terminated for an alleged violation of a confidentiality provision in his employment agreement. Following his termination, Mooney sued his former employer for retaliation under the False Claims Act (FCA), breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The district court granted summary judgment for Vivida on all three claims. In this opinion, the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that Mooney had engaged in protected activity in that he subjectively and objectively believed that Vivida was possibly committing fraud against the government in connection with its billing practices. The Court further held that Mooney had met the notice requirement with a showing that Vivida must have known that Mooney was engaging in protected conduct and, further, that it was irrelevant that Mooney had a job duty to ensure compliance with billing regulations and to report irregularities. Finally, Mooney established genuine issues of material fact as to whether the reasons proffered by Vivida for the termination were pretextual.