assuming the City’s immunity from liability under the FCA prevented Plaintiff from investigating matters which were calculated, or reasonably could lead to a viable FCA action against the City, section 3730(h) is not so limited as to protect only those whistleblowers who investigate matters which could lead to a viable FCA action against their employers. The statute does not read: “Any employee who is discharged by his or her employer because of lawful acts done by the employee.. .in furtherance of an action against the employer under this section.... ” Rather, the statute protects employees who are retaliated against for investigating or prosecuting FCA actions against their employers and third parties. See, e.g., Nguyen v. City of Cleveland, 121 F.Supp.2d 643, 647 (N.D.Ohio 2000) (<HOLDING>). In this case, Plaintiff investigated and is
holding that supervisory employee is not an employer under the terms of cfepa and because the employer is liable for the employees actions a plaintiff may not maintain an action against the employee individually under conngenstat  46a60 holding that no judgment can be rendered against defendant who cannot be held liable holding that employer may be held liable under  1981 for discrimination by supervisory employee holding that employer who failed to take remedial action could be held liable for sexual harassment of employee by subcontractors employees holding that an employer could be held liable under section 3730h for retaliating against an employee who prosecuted an fca action against employers client