Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel. Kirk

• Decision Date: 16 May 2011
• Docket Number: No. 10–188.,10–188.
• Citation: 563 U.S. 401,131 S.Ct. 1885,179 L.Ed.2d 825
• Parties: SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES ex rel. Daniel KIRK.
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

563 U.S. 401

131 S.Ct. 1885

179 L.Ed.2d 825

SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION, Petitioner,

v.UNITED STATES ex rel. Daniel KIRK.

No. 10–188.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued March 1, 2011.

Decided May 16, 2011.

Steven Alan Reiss, New York, NY, for petitioner.

Jonathan A. Willens, New York, NY, for respondent.

Melissa Arbus Sherry for the United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting respondent.

Lisa R. Eskow, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Houston, TX, Gregory S. Coleman, Marc S. Tabolsky, Yetter Coleman LLP, Austin, TX, Steven Alan Reiss, Counsel of Record, Gregory Silbert, David Yolkut, Adam Banks, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, NY, for Petitioner.

Jonathan A. Willens, Counsel of Record, Jonathan A. Willens, LLC, New York, NY, for Respondent Daniel Kirk.

Justice THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

The False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 – 3733, PROHIBITS SUBMITTING FALSE OR FRAUDULENT CLAIMS FOR PAYMENt to the United States, § 3729(a), and authorizes qui tam suits, in which private parties bring civil actions in the Government's name, § 3730(b)(1). This case concerns the FCA's public disclosure bar, which generally forecloses qui tam suits that are "based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions ... in a congressional, administrative, or Government Accounting Office report, hearing, audit, or investigation." § 3730(e)(4)(A) (footnote omitted).¹ We must decide whether a federal agency's written response to a request for records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, constitutes a "report" within the meaning of the public disclosure bar. We hold that it does.

I

Petitioner Schindler Elevator Corporation manufactures, installs, and services elevators and escalators.² In 1989, Schindler acquired Millar Elevator Industries, Inc., and the two companies merged in 2002.

Since 1999, Schindler and the United States have entered into hundreds of contracts that are subject to the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1972 (VEVRAA). That Act requires contractors like Schindler to report certain information to the Secretary of Labor, including how many of its employees are "qualified covered veterans" under the statute. 38 U.S.C. § 4212(d)(1). VEVRAA regulations required Schindler to agree in each of its contracts that it would "submit VETS–100 Reports no later than September 30 of each year." 48 CFR § 52.222–37(c) (2008); see also § 22.1310(b).

Respondent Daniel Kirk, a United States Army veteran who served in Vietnam, was employed by Millar and Schindler from 1978 until 2003. In August 2003, Kirk resigned from Schindler in response to what he saw as Schindler's efforts to force him out.³

In March 2005, Kirk filed this action against Schindler under the False Claims Act, which imposes civil penalties and treble damages on persons who submit false or fraudulent claims for payment to the United States. 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a). The FCA authorizes both civil actions by the Attorney General and private qui tam actions to enforce its provisions. § 3730. When, as here, the Government chooses not to intervene in a qui tam action, the private relator stands to receive between 25% and 30% of the proceeds of the action. § 3730(d)(2).

In an amended complaint filed in June 2007, Kirk alleged that Schindler had submitted hundreds of false claims for payment under its Government contracts. According to Kirk, Schindler had violated VEVRAA's reporting requirements by failing to file certain required VETS–100 reports and including false information in those it did file. The company's claims for payment were false, Kirk alleged, because Schindler had falsely certified its compliance with VEVRAA. Kirk did not specify the amount of damages he sought on behalf of the United States, but he asserted that the value of Schindler's VEVRAA-covered contracts exceeded $100 million.

To support his allegations, Kirk pointed to information his wife, Linda Kirk, received from the Department of Labor (DOL) in response to three FOIA requests. Mrs. Kirk had sought all VETS–100 reports filed by Schindler for the years 1998 through 2006. The DOL responded by letter or e-mail to each request with information about the records found for each year, including years for which no responsive records were located. The DOL informed Mrs. Kirk that it found no VETS–100 reports filed by Schindler in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, or 2003. For the other years, the DOL provided Mrs. Kirk with copies of the reports filed by Schindler, 99 in all.

Schindler moved to dismiss on a number of grounds, including that the FCA's public disclosure bar deprived the District Court of jurisdiction. See § 3730(e)(4)(A). The District Court granted the motion, concluding that most of Kirk's allegations failed to state a claim and that the remainder were based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions in an administrative "report" or "investigation." 606 F.Supp.2d 448 (S.D.N.Y.2009).

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated and remanded. 601 F.3d 94 (2010). The court effectively held that an agency's response to a FOIA request is neither a "report" nor an "investigation" within the meaning of the FCA's public disclosure bar. See id. , at 103–111 (agreeing with United States ex rel. Haight v. Catholic Healthcare West, 445 F.3d 1147 (C.A.9 2006), and disagreeing with United States ex rel. Mistick PBT v. Housing Auth. of Pittsburgh, 186 F.3d 376 (C.A.3 1999) ). We granted certiorari, 561 U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 63, 177 L.Ed.2d 1152 (2010), and now reverse and remand.

II

Schindler argues that "report" in the FCA's public disclosure bar carries its ordinary meaning and that the DOL's written responses to Mrs. Kirk's FOIA requests are therefore "reports." We agree.⁴

A

Adopted in 1986, the FCA's public disclosure bar provides:

"No court shall have jurisdiction over an action under this section based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions in a criminal, civil, or administrative hearing, in a congressional, administrative, or Government Accounting Office report, hearing, audit, or investigation, or from the news media, unless the action is brought by the Attorney General or the person bringing the action is an original source of the information." 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(A) (footnote omitted).

Because the statute does not define "report," we look first to the word's ordinary meaning. See Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167, ––––, 129 S.Ct. 2343, 2350, 174 L.Ed.2d 119 (2009) ("Statutory construction must begin with the language employed by Congress and the assumption that the ordinary meaning of that language accurately expresses the legislative purpose" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Asgrow Seed Co. v. Winterboer, 513 U.S. 179, 187, 115 S.Ct. 788, 130 L.Ed.2d 682 (1995) ("When terms used in a statute are undefined, we give them their ordinary meaning"). A "report" is "something that gives information" or a "notification," Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1925 (1986), or "[a]n official or formal statement of facts or proceedings," Black's Law Dictionary 1300 (6th ed. 1990). See also 13 Oxford English Dictionary 650 (2d ed.1989) ("[a]n account brought by one person to another"); American Heritage Dictionary 1103 (1981) ("[a]n account or announcement that is prepared, presented, or delivered, usually in formal or organized form"); Random House Dictionary 1634 (2d ed.1987) ("an account or statement describing in detail an event, situation, or the like").

This broad ordinary meaning of "report" is consistent with the generally broad scope of the FCA's public disclosure bar. As we explained last Term, to determine the meaning of one word in the public disclosure bar, we must consider the provision's "entire text," read as an "integrated whole." Graham County Soil and Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 559 U.S. 280, ––––, 130 S.Ct. 1396, 1406, n. 12, 176 L.Ed.2d 225 (2010); see also Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656, 662, 121 S.Ct. 2478, 150 L.Ed.2d 632 (2001) ("We do not ... construe the meaning of statutory terms in a vacuum"). The other sources of public disclosure in § 3730(e)(4)(A), especially "news media," suggest that the public disclosure bar provides "a broa[d] sweep." Graham County, supra, at ––––, 130 S.Ct., at 1404. The statute also mentions "administrative hearings" twice, reflecting intent to avoid underinclusiveness even at the risk of redundancy.

The phrase "allegations or transactions" in § 3730(e)(4)(A) additionally suggests a wide-reaching public disclosure bar. Congress covered not only the disclosure of "allegations" but also "transactions," a term that courts have recognized as having a broad meaning. See, e.g., Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange, 270 U.S. 593, 610, 46 S.Ct. 367, 70 L.Ed. 750 (1926) (" ‘Transaction’ is a word of flexible meaning"); Hamilton v. United Healthcare of La., Inc., 310 F.3d 385, 391 (C.A.5 2002) ("[T]he ordinary meaning of the term ‘transaction’ is a broad reference to many different types of business dealings between parties").

Nor is there any textual basis for adopting a narrower definition of "report." The Court of Appeals, in holding that FOIA responses were not "reports," looked to the words "hearing, audit, or investigation," and the phrase "criminal, civil, [and] administrative hearings." It concluded that all of these sources "connote the synthesis of information in an investigatory context" to "serve some end of the government." 601 F.3d, at 107; cf. Brief for Respondent 30, n. 15 ("Each is part of the government's ongoing effort to fight fraud"). Applying the noscitur a sociis canon, the Court of Appeals then determined that these " ‘neighboring words' " mandated a narrower meaning for "report" than its ordinary meaning. 601 F.3d, at 107.

The Court of Appeals committed the very error we reversed in Graham County. Like the Fourth Circuit in that case, the Second Circuit here applied the ...