Miller v. Weston Educ., Inc., No. 14-1760 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseFormer employees filed a qui tam False Claims suit against Heritage College, a for-profit school, alleging it fraudulently induced the Department of Education (DOE) to provide funds by falsely promising to keep accurate student records as required by 20 U.S.C. 1094(a)(3). They claimed that Heritage altered grade and attendance records from 2006 to 2012 to ensure students made satisfactory progress and to avoid refunds, thereby maximizing Title IV funds. Around 97% of Heritage students receive Title IV aid, accounting for about 90% of gross tuition. From 2009 to 2012, the DOE disbursed $32,817,727 to Heritage. Each relator also alleged retaliation under the FCA and wrongful discharge under state law. For purposes of summary judgment, Heritage did not dispute that it altered records. The district court granted summary judgment to Heritage, finding that any false statements were not material to government funding decisions. The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded the FCA claim, but affirmed the employment claims. Heritage could not have executed the participation agreement without stating it would maintain adequate records and without the agreement Heritage could not have received any Title IV funds. Heritage's actions with respect to the plaintiffs were not retaliatory.
Court Description: Benton, Author, with Smith and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - False Claims Act. In an action alleging Heritage College altered grade and attendance records from 2006 to 2012 to ensure students made "satisfactory progress" to maximize the school's receipt of Title IV funds, the district court erred in granting the school's motion for summary judgment as there was a genuine issue of material fact as to how the school understood its obligations and whether it intended to comply with the Program Participation Agreement it signed with the Department of Education; the district court did not err in finding the school did not retaliate against plaintiff Miller as the actions taken against her did not amount to retaliatory action and the school did not constructively discharge her; the district court did not err in finding plaintiff Stillman failed to demonstrate that the misconduct she reported before her discharge violated any law or clear public policy.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.