Claims Act action. Cf. Century Healthcare Corp., 90 F.3d at 1522-23. At no time did plaintiff allege that defendant was defrauding the government. Nor did plaintiff ever assert that the alleged improprieties involved funds provided by the federal government. Although plaintiff did present evidence showing that Parker knew that plaintiff complained to Mr. Fletcher about preferential treatment of employees and vendors in the Purchasing Department, there was absolutely no evidence presented from which the jury could have found that Parker believed that plaintiff was contemplating a qui tarn suit against him or assisting the government in an investigation. Defendant Parker’s motion will accordingly be granted. See United States, ex rel. Hopper v. Anton, 91 F.3d 1261, 1269-70 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); cf. Robertson, 32 F.3d at 951. IV Defendant
holding that plaintiff failed to present evidence to support jury verdict on fca retaliation claim because plaintiff never gave any indication that she was investigating school district for defrauding the federal government although defendant may have engaged in retaliation for plaintiffs activities there was no connection to the fca holding that even if court erred in directing verdict for employer on plaintiffs state law retaliation claim it was harmless given the jurys finding for employer on identical federal law retaliation claim holding that a title vii retaliation claim was not properly before the court because although the plaintiff had not been fired when he filed his complaint the plaintiff never amended his complaint to include a claim of retaliation based on his termination holding that a plaintiff bringing a retaliation claim under title vii must establish a prima facie case of retaliation by showing that she engaged in a protected activity that she was subjected to an adverse employment action by her employer and that there was a causal link between the two holding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation because there was no evidence that the decisionmaker knew of the plaintiffs protected conduct