Whistleblower & qui tam.
Who leads this work — Arthur Karadzhyan: employment litigation from both sides of the table — plaintiff-side wage-and-hour class actions and defense practice at a national employment firm. That vantage is the method: knowing how the other side reads a file before they read it.
Two different protections wear the whistleblower name. One is yours: the retaliation case for what reporting cost you. The other is the government’s: the fraud case you are deputized to bring. The two tracks require separate assessment. This page explains their relationship; it does not promise that this office will accept a qui tam engagement.
1 · What the law says
Your case. Labor Code section 1102.5 protects disclosures of what you reasonably believe is unlawful — made internally, to your employer, or to any government agency — along with refusals to participate in illegality. You need not be right, need not use magic words, and need not be the first to say it.[Kolla’s] The burden framework is deliberately favorable: your report need only have been a contributing factor; the employer must then prove by clear and convincing evidence it would have acted the same anyway — the Lawson framework, with no administrative exhaustion in the way. Health-and-safety reports carry their own parallel shield.[Lab. Code §6310]
The government’s case. Where the underlying conduct is fraud on a government program — billing fraud in healthcare, procurement fraud, grant fraud — the False Claims Act, federal or California’s, lets you file suit in the government’s name: under seal, with a disclosure statement of your evidence, for a statutory share of any recovery.[31 U.S.C. §§3729–3733; Gov. Code §12650 et seq.] The falsehood must be material to payment, per Escobar; the first relator to file owns the claim; and public disclosure bars latecomers who are not original sources. The FCA’s own anti-retaliation provision adds reinstatement, double back pay, and fees for what pursuing it costs you.[§3730(h)]
2 · How these cases actually unfold
On two tracks with different physics. The retaliation case turns on records, sequence, and the applicable burden framework. The qui tam is different in kind: filed under seal, served on the government rather than the defendant, then a long quiet while prosecutors investigate and decide whether to intervene. The disclosure statement presents the evidence for the government’s evaluation. Intervened cases proceed with the government in the lead; declined cases can still be pursued, and some of the statute’s largest recoveries were declined cases. Throughout, the retaliation claims — which are not sealed — must be sequenced so neither track compromises the other.
3 · Issues to examine
The seal, treated casually. Discussing a sealed case — with coworkers, online, “hypothetically” — can cost a relator the share, and worse. Discuss permitted disclosures with counsel before communicating about a sealed matter.
First-to-file, treated slowly. Every week a complaint sits in drafting is a week another insider somewhere may file first. Qui tam intake runs on a different clock than employment intake, and firms that treat them alike lose races they never knew they were in.
The independence of §1102.5. The retaliation claim needs no FCA case to exist — reporting fraud internally is protected whether or not a qui tam ever gets filed. Clients are routinely told they “have no case” because the fraud case is weak, when the retaliation case was strong all along.
The document line. Relators need evidence; employers cry theft. The law affords some latitude for documents evidencing the fraud itself, but the line is real and fact-specific. What you already lawfully hold, hold. Beyond that — advice first, always.
4 · Our approach
Evaluation should address materiality, specificity, program requirements, and the alleged billing mechanism: who billed what, when, and on whose instruction. It should also address sealing requirements and the independent basis for any retaliation claim. The scope of any representation, including whether qui tam counsel should be involved, must be determined for the particular matter.
What to bring to a first conversation
What you saw, specifically: the mechanism, not the vibe. What you already lawfully possess — do not collect more first. Who else knows, and whether anything is public. What reporting has already cost you, in order, with dates. Seek advice before disclosing sensitive material or taking action that could affect a sealed claim. Start an inquiry with the limited information requested on the contact page.
Selected authorities
Lab. Code §§1102.5, 1102.6, 6310 · 31 U.S.C. §§3729–3733, 3730(b), (d), (e), (h) · Gov. Code §§12650 et seq., 12652(g) · Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 703 · People ex rel. Garcia-Brower v. Kolla’s, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 719 · Universal Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar (2016) 579 U.S. 176
Prev/next: 05 Wage and hour · —
Page states California law as of its revision date.
This article states California law as of its revision date and is analysis, not legal advice. Reading this site does not create an attorney-client relationship. Attorney advertising.