In Stein v. Tri-City Healthcare District, No. 3:12-CV-2524 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2014), defendant moved for summary judgment with respect to plaintiff’s anti-retaliation complaint.  Plaintiff had been employed as the defendant’s Senior Vice President of Legal Affairs and Chief Compliance Officer.  He allegedly raised concerns that proposed transactions would lead to violations of the False Claims Act.  He communicated his concerns to the Chief Executive Officer, the Chief Operating Officer, and outside counsel, and raised them again during an executive meeting.  He also sought a meeting with certain board members to discuss the issue, but that request was denied.  He was subsequently terminated and brought suit under the anti-retaliation provision of the False Claims Act and under state law.  Defendant sought summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff’s reports were part of his normal day-to-day duties as a compliance officer and thus he could not show that the employer knew about his protected activities.  Noting that the Ninth Circuit has not yet weighed in on this issue, the court followed other courts of appeals which have held that compliance officers must prove they went beyond their normal job duties in order to show employer notice that they were engaged in protective conduct.  The court found that plaintiff satisfied this standard because he made multiple reports outside of his usual chain of command.  The employer thus failed to meet its burden of showing that plaintiff could not prove the employer knew of plaintiff’s protected activity, and denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment.