in Robertson v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 32 F.3d 948 (5th Cir.1994) and Hopper, investigated fraud outside of the scope his employment and was not merely urging compliance with regulations but detailing fraudulent practices .... Unlike the plaintiff in Yesudian, McKenzie has not taken action in furtherance of a qui tam action under the FCA. When McKenzie brought her complaints to the attention of the BellSouth auditor and her supervisors, legal action was not a reasonable or distinct possibility. Although the newspaper article distributed and posted by McKenzie shows awareness of consumer fraud, the “in furtherance of’ language requires more than merely reporting wrongdoing to supervisors. See Eberhardt v. Integrated Design & Const. Inc., 167 F.3d 861, 868 (4th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Zahodnick v. International Bus. Machs. Corp.,
holding that the county government not the federal government was liable for the taking of an air easement over plaintiffs property even though the airport was funded in part by a federal grant based on compliance with federal regulations holding that a sixmonth gap between the protected activity and the employees termination was insufficient to infer that the protected activity was a contributing factor holding that evidence that  is consistent with acts of private violence  or that merely shows that a person has been the victim of criminal activity does not constitute evidence of persecution based on a statutorily protected ground holding that the fact that employer had knowledge of the employees protected activity was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation where the timing of the discharge was not proximate to the protected activity holding that merely reporting concerns of mischarging a government project or investigating an employers noncompliance with federal or state regulations was insufficient to constitute protected activity under the fca