No. _______ In The Supreme Court of the United States -------------------------- ♦ --------------------------- UNITED STATES EX REL. MUGE CODY, Petitioner, v. MANTECH INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Respondent. -------------------------- ♦ -------------------------- ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT -------------------------- ♦ -------------------------- PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI -------------------------- ♦ -------------------------- Michael L. Foreman Counsel of Record PENN STATE LAW CIVIL RIGHTS APPELLATE CLINIC 329 Innovation Boulevard, Suite 118 University Park, Pennsylvania 16802 (814) 865-3832 [email protected] R. Scott Oswald John T. Harrington Andrew D. Howell THE EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP, PC 888 17th Street, NW, 9th floor Washington, DC 20006 (202) 261-2806 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner Dated: February 1, 2019 THE LEX GROUPDC i 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. i Suite 500, #5190 i Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 955-0001 i (800) 856-4419 i www.thelexgroup.com i QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW In Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000), the Court articulated standards for reviewing an appellate court’s reversal of a jury verdict under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b). The Court emphasized that in reviewing a motion for judgment as a matter of law “the court should review all the evidence … and the court must draw all favorable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, and it may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.” The question presented is whether the appellate court erred in not applying the Reeves standards in a case brought under the False Claims Act and the Defense Contractor Whistleblower Protection Act and erred in reversing the jury verdict in favor of Muge Cody and subsequently reversing the trial court’s denial of the employer’s Rule 50 motion for a judgment as a matter of law. ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS Petitioner in this Court is Muge Cody who was plaintiff in the district court and plaintiff-appellee in the court of appeals. Kevin Cody was a plaintiff in the district court and plaintiff-appellee in the court of appeals but is not a party before this Court. Respondent in this Court is ManTech International Corporation, which was the defendant in district court and defendant-appellant in the court of appeals. iii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29.6, Muge Cody is an individual. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ............... i PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS ......................... ii CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ........... iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................... vii PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ................ 1 OPINIONS BELOW ................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ........................... 1 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED......................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................... 4 A. Overview ................................................ 4 B. Factual History ..................................... 6 C. Proceedings Below ............................... 12 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT ............... 14 I. The Circuit Court decision conflicts with the Court’s unanimous longstanding decision in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products and ignores the Court’s decision in Desert Palace v. Costa ....... 14 v A. Introduction .............................. 14 B. The Fourth Circuit’s review in this case mirrors the lower court action in Reeves, where this Court held the Appellate Court usurped the role of the jury ...... 21 C. The Fourth Circuit’s error is further compounded because it failed to recognize this Court’s Ruling in Desert Palace v. Costa that, in cases where motive is required, circumstantial evidence is just as probative as direct evidence ..................................... 29 II. The issue is of significant national importance given Congressional intent to create a meaningful cause of action protecting those who challenge fraud under the False Claims Act and the Defense Contractor Whistleblower Protection Act ...................................... 31 III. This case presents an excellent vehicle to address this important issue and reinforce the appellate court’s limited role in reviewing factual determinations made by a jury and accepted by the trial judge..................................................... 35 vi CONCLUSION ......................................................... 36 APPENDIX: Unpublished Opinion of The United States Court of Appeals For the Fourth Circuit entered August 8, 2018 .................................. 1a Judgment of The United States Court of Appeals For the Fourth Circuit entered August 8, 2018 ................................ 46a Memorandum Opinion and Order of The United States District Court For the Eastern District of Virginia entered May 19, 2017................................... 48a Order of The United States Court of Appeals For the Fourth Circuit Re: Denying Petition for Rehearing entered September 5, 2018 .......................... 69a vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Allison Engine Co. v. United States ex rel. Sanders, 553 U.S. 662 (2008) ........................................ 34 Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, NC, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) ............................ 17, 20, 29 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) ........................................ 22 Aponte-Rivera v. DHL Sols. (USA), Inc., 650 F.3d 803 (1st Cir. 2011) .......................... 16 Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 502 (2006) ........................................ 14 Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 546 U.S. 454 (2006) ........................................ 36 Blunt v. Little, 3 F.Cas. 760 (Cir. Ct. Mass. 1822) ............ 19-20 Comm’r v. McCoy, 484 U.S. 3 (1987) ............................................ 36 Cone v. West Virginia Pulp &Paper Co. 330 U.S. 212 (1947) ........................................ 18 viii Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 529 U.S. 90 (2003) ........................ 14, 29, 35, 37 Digital Realty Tr., Inc. v. Somers, 138 S. Ct. 767 (2018) ...................................... 33 EEOC v. St. Joseph’s Hosp., Inc., 842 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2016) ...................... 15 Gasperini v. Ctr. for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415 (1996) ........................................ 19 Graham Cty. Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 559 U.S. 280 (2010) ........................................ 34 Grunenthal v. Long Island R.R. Co., 393 U.S. 156 (1968) ........................................ 19 Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U.S. 645 (1946) ........................................ 17 Marchan v. John Miller Farms, Inc., __ F.Supp.3d __, 2018 WL 6518660 (D.N.D. 2018) ............................ 17 McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publ. Co., 513 U.S. 352 (1995) ........................................ 36 Pickett v. Sheridan Health Care Ctr., 610 F.3d 434 (7th Cir. 2010) .......................... 15 Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 197 F.3d 688 (5th Cir. 1999) .......................... 21 ix Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) ................................ passim Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. 457 (2007) ........................................ 34 Rogers v. Mo. Pac.ific R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 500 (1957) ........................................ 19 Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel. Kirk, 563 U.S. 401 (2011) ........................................ 34 Sioux City & Pac. R.R. v. Stout, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 657 (1873) ......................... 14 State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby, 137 S. Ct. 436 (2016) ...................................... 34 The Quickstep, 76 U.S. 665 (1869) .......................................... 18 Tolan v. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650 (2014) .................................. 22, 37 United States ex rel. Cody v. ManTech Int’l, Corp., 207 F. Supp. 3d 610 (E.D. Va. 2016) ............. 34 United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of N.Y., 556 U.S. 928 (2009) ........................................ 34 United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 353 U.S. 586 (1957) ........................................ 18 x United States v. Glover, 681 F.3d 411 (D.C. Cir. 2012) ........................ 15 Universal Health Serv. Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 136 S.Ct. 1989 (2016) ..................................... 31 Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985) ........................................ 17 Williams v. W.D. Sports, N.M., Inc., 497 F.3d 1079 (10th Cir. 2007) ...................... 16 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION U.S. CONST. amend. VII ......................... 17, 18, 19, 20 STATUTES 10 U.S.C. § 2409 .................................................... 3, 33 20 U.S.C. § 1254(1) ..................................................... 1 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) ................................................... 32 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h)(1) .............................................. 2-3 RULES Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) .......................................... passim Sup. Ct. R. 10(c) ........................................................ 36 xi OTHER AUTHORITIES Eric Schnapper, Judges Against Juries— Appellate Review of Federal Jury Verdicts, 1989 Wis. L. Rev. 237 (1989) ......................... 18 FCA. Top False Claims Act Cases by Civil Award Amount, Taxpayers Against Fraud