CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
DANIEL WOLLSCHLAGER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 20-1536
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:19-cv-10505—Victoria A. Roberts, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: March 31, 2021
Before: SUHRHEINRICH, SILER, and SUTTON, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. The State Bank in Fenton, Michigan faced financial challenges during the 2008 Great Recession. It hired Daniel Wollschlager, a banking executive and lending officer, to steady the ship. As an enticement, the Bank’s holding company offered to pay Wollschlager roughly two years’ salary if the Bank fired him prematurely—a golden parachute arrangement that Congress requires the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to approve when it comes to troubled banks. That risk materialized in 2011, when Wollschlager and the Bank parted ways. The Bank sought permission from the FDIC to pay Wollschlager the first installment of this money, roughly a year’s salary. The FDIC approved the request. When the Bank later asked permission to pay the last installment, however, the FDIC declined on the ground that golden parachute arrangements should not exceed one year’s salary, particularly for someone who had worked at the bank for just three years. Wollschlager sued the agency, alleging that it violated the Administrative Procedure Act by refusing to permit the second payment. The district court granted the FDIC’s motion for judgment on the administrative record. Because the FDIC’s decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious, we affirm.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. DAVID FELTEN, M.D., Ph.D.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL,
Defendant- Appellee.
   No. 20-1002
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 2:10-cv-13440—Stephen J. Murphy, III, District Judge.
Argued: October 20, 2020
Decided and Filed: March 31, 2021
Before: McKEAGUE, GRIFFIN, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. David Felten appeals the district court’s partial dismissal of his first amended complaint alleging that William Beaumont Hospital (“Beaumont”) violated the anti-retaliation provision of the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h). Felten claims that Beaumont blacklisted him after he filed a qui tam complaint, in which he alleged that the hospital violated certain federal and state laws. Notably, the alleged blacklisting occurred after Felten’s termination from Beaumont, and Felten’s anti-retaliation claim challenges only Beaumont’s post-termination actions. The district court dismissed the claim because it held that the FCA’s anti-retaliation provision covers only retaliatory actions taken during the course of a plaintiff’s employment. The district court certified for interlocutory appeal the question whether the FCA’s anti-retaliation provision protects a relator from a defendant’s retaliation after the relator’s termination. That question is an issue of first impression in our circuit. Because we hold that the FCA’s anti-retaliation provision protects former employees alleging post-termination retaliation, we vacate the district court’s dismissal order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.