## Facts

- Lillie R. Battle worked (1987–1998) in Fort Valley State University’s Office of Financial Aid and Veterans Affairs, within the Georgia university system overseen by the Board of Regents.
- Her duties included verifying student financial-aid files and reporting suspected irregularities.
- In the mid-1990s, she believed she observed misconduct involving federal student-aid programs (including Federal Work Study), and she collected notes and copied documents.
- After receiving files previously handled by the financial-aid director, Jeanette K. Huff, Battle concluded the files reflected improper practices (e.g., awards to ineligible recipients, excessive awards, falsified or forged documents).
- Battle raised concerns internally: first to Huff, then up the institutional chain, including the university president, Oscar L. Prater, and other administrators.
- After these reports, Battle received an unfavorable evaluation and notice that her employment contract would not be renewed.
- Following the nonrenewal notice, Battle reported the alleged irregularities to the U.S. Department of Education; subsequent investigations/audits found regulatory noncompliance and resulted in a financial settlement.
- Battle filed a federal action asserting (1) First Amendment retaliation based on nonrenewal and (2) a False Claims Act qui tam claim alleging false claims for federal funds.

## Issues

1. Whether Battle’s internal reports of alleged financial-aid misconduct were protected speech under the First Amendment or unprotected employee speech made pursuant to her official duties.
2. Whether Battle’s False Claims Act qui tam claims were barred by the public-disclosure provision and, if so, whether she qualified as an “original source.”

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants on all claims.
- The court held Battle’s reports were made pursuant to her official duties and therefore were not protected by the First Amendment under *Garcetti v. Ceballos*.
- The court held the FCA claims were jurisdictionally barred because the allegations were based on publicly disclosed audits/investigations and Battle did not establish original-source status.

## Legal Principles

- A public employee does not speak “as a citizen” for First Amendment purposes when making statements pursuant to official duties; such speech is not constitutionally protected from employer retaliation.
- Internal reporting through a workplace chain of command, when tied to assigned job responsibilities, is treated as employee-duty speech under *Garcetti*.
- Under the FCA public-disclosure bar (as applied in this case), courts lack jurisdiction over a qui tam action based upon publicly disclosed allegations or transactions unless the relator is an original source.
- “Original source” requires direct and independent knowledge of the information underlying the publicly disclosed allegations and voluntary disclosure to the government before suit; reliance on audit findings without sufficient independent evidentiary linkage fails this requirement.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit upheld judgment for the university officials and governing board because Battle’s internal fraud complaints were part of her job duties and thus outside First Amendment protection, and because her FCA qui tam case depended on publicly disclosed audit material without a showing that she independently qualified as an original source.


Battle v. Bd. of Regents for the State of Ga., 468 F.3d 755 (11th Cir. 2006)