False Claims Act and Qui Tam Whistleblower Cases in Nevada

Discovering that a company, contractor, healthcare provider, or other organization may be submitting false claims to the government can put an employee in a difficult position. The conduct may involve falsified records, improper billing, false certifications, or other practices that cause the government to pay money it should not have paid. If you are considering reporting suspected fraud involving government funds, our Retaliation & Whistleblowing Attorney (Nevada) resource provides additional information about whistleblower protections and retaliation claims.

Nevada whistleblower cases involving false claims can arise under two different legal frameworks. The federal False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733, addresses fraud involving money or property of the United States, while Nevada’s NRS Chapter 357 addresses false claims submitted to the State of Nevada or its political subdivisions. Both laws permit certain private individuals to bring qui tam actions, but the procedures, government interests, and applicable requirements must be examined carefully.

What Is a False Claims Act Case?

The federal False Claims Act generally imposes civil liability when a person knowingly presents, or causes another person to present, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval by the federal government. It also addresses certain false records or statements material to a false claim, conspiracies, and situations involving obligations to return money or property to the government. The statute provides for treble damages and civil penalties in qualifying cases.

A false claim is not necessarily limited to an obviously fabricated invoice. Depending on the circumstances, FCA liability can involve billing for services that were not provided, misrepresenting compliance with contractual or regulatory requirements, submitting claims supported by materially false records, or knowingly avoiding an obligation to return money owed to the government. Whether particular conduct satisfies the statutory requirements depends on the facts and the applicable federal law.

Nevada’s statute is similar in important respects but applies to claims involving the State or a political subdivision. NRS 357.040 covers knowingly presenting false or fraudulent claims, using material false records or statements, certain conduct involving public property, and knowingly avoiding obligations to pay or transmit money or property to the State or a political subdivision.

What Does “Qui Tam” Mean?

A qui tam action allows a private person, commonly called a relator, to bring a civil action on behalf of the government concerning qualifying false claims. Under the federal FCA, the action is brought in the name of the United States. Under Nevada’s statute, a private plaintiff may bring an action on behalf of the State, a political subdivision, or both, depending on the claim.

The relator is not simply filing a normal lawsuit against an employer. The government has a significant role in the case, and the statutory process is designed to give the government an opportunity to evaluate the allegations. This is one reason qui tam litigation is substantially different from an ordinary employment dispute or whistleblower complaint.

How Does a Federal Qui Tam Case Work?

Under the federal FCA, a relator files the complaint under seal and provides the government with a copy of the complaint and a written disclosure of substantially all material evidence and information in the relator’s possession. The complaint remains under seal for at least 60 days, and the defendant is not served unless the court orders service.

The federal government then evaluates the allegations and decides whether to intervene and take primary responsibility for the litigation. The statutory 60-day period can be extended for good cause. If the government intervenes, it becomes primarily responsible for prosecuting the action, although the relator remains involved subject to the statute and court orders. If the government declines to intervene, the relator may generally continue pursuing the case.

The existence of a seal is particularly important. A potential relator should not assume that filing a complaint is equivalent to publicly accusing the defendant. The statutory process is designed to allow the government to investigate the allegations before the defendant is formally served.

How Does Nevada’s Qui Tam Process Work?

Nevada provides a similar mechanism under NRS 357.080 for false claims involving the State or a political subdivision. A private plaintiff may bring an action in the name of the State, political subdivision, or both. The complaint must be placed under seal for at least 60 days or until the Attorney General or authorized designee decides whether to intervene. The private plaintiff must also provide the Attorney General with the complaint and substantially all material evidence and information in the plaintiff’s possession.

Within 60 days after receiving the complaint and disclosure, the Nevada Attorney General or authorized designee may intervene or seek an extension for good cause. If the Attorney General declines to intervene, the private plaintiff may proceed with the action. If the Attorney General intervenes, the private plaintiff remains a party, although the government assumes an important role in the litigation.

Nevada law was amended in 2025 to clarify the circumstances in which a private plaintiff may bring a qui tam action when related civil or administrative proceedings already exist. The current statutory language provides that a private plaintiff may not bring an action when the allegations or transactions are the subject of a civil action or administrative proceeding for a monetary penalty to which the State or political subdivision is already a party.

Who Can Receive a Qui Tam Recovery?

The financial structure is one reason qui tam cases receive significant attention from potential whistleblowers. Under the federal FCA, a successful relator may receive a statutory share of the government’s recovery. When the government intervenes, the relator’s share generally falls within the statutory range of 15% to 25%; when the government does not intervene and the relator conducts the action, the statutory range is generally 25% to 30%, subject to applicable exceptions.

Nevada’s statute also provides for a relator’s share. If the Attorney General intervenes at the outset, the private plaintiff generally receives between 15% and 25% of the recovery. If the Attorney General does not intervene at the outset, the range is generally 25% to 30%. The court can reduce the recovery in certain circumstances, including when the private plaintiff planned or initiated the underlying violation.

The potential financial recovery should not be the only consideration when deciding how to proceed. Qui tam cases can involve extensive investigations, confidential information, complex statutory requirements, and substantial litigation risk. A person considering a claim should understand the legal framework before attempting to pursue the matter independently.

What Does “Original Source” Mean in Nevada?

Nevada’s law contains specific provisions addressing publicly disclosed allegations. Under NRS 357.100, a private action based substantially on allegations or transactions that have already been publicly disclosed in specified hearings, investigations, audits, or news reports may be dismissed unless the action is brought by the Attorney General, an authorized designee, or an original source.

NRS 357.026 defines an original source as a person who voluntarily discloses the information to the State or political subdivision before public disclosure, or a person with independent knowledge that materially adds to the publicly disclosed allegations who voluntarily provides that information before bringing the action.

This means that simply finding an allegation in a public report and filing a lawsuit may not be enough. The source and quality of the information can become important to whether a private plaintiff is permitted to proceed.

What If Your Employer Retaliates?

The federal FCA contains a specific anti-retaliation provision. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) protects an employee, contractor, or agent who experiences discrimination in the terms or conditions of employment because of lawful acts taken in furtherance of an FCA action or efforts to stop violations of the statute. The provision can provide remedies including reinstatement, twice the amount of back pay, interest, special damages, litigation costs, and reasonable attorney’s fees. A federal FCA retaliation action generally must be brought within three years after the retaliation occurred.

Nevada has a corresponding protection under NRS 357.250. If an employee, contractor, or agent is discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened, harassed, or discriminated against because of lawful acts taken in furtherance of an action under Chapter 357 or efforts to stop a violation, the statute provides remedies intended to make the individual whole. These can include reinstatement or damages instead, twice lost compensation, interest, special damages, punitive damages when appropriate, costs, and attorney’s fees. The civil action must be brought within three years after the retaliatory conduct.

Retaliation does not necessarily begin with termination. A demotion, suspension, threats, harassment, or other discriminatory changes in employment conditions may become relevant under the applicable statute. The facts surrounding the protected activity and the employer’s response should therefore be documented carefully.

What Should a Potential Qui Tam Whistleblower Do?

Start by preserving evidence lawfully available to you. Relevant material may include contracts, invoices, billing records, emails, policies, audit documents, payment records, certifications, and communications concerning the suspected conduct. Do not alter records or remove information you are not legally entitled to possess.

Next, determine which government is allegedly being defrauded. If the money belongs to the United States, the federal FCA may be relevant. If the claim involves Nevada or a Nevada political subdivision, NRS Chapter 357 may apply. Some transactions can involve multiple sources of government funding, making the analysis more complicated.

You should also determine whether the government or another whistleblower already knows about the conduct. Public disclosures and competing qui tam actions can affect the ability of a private plaintiff to proceed. Nevada’s statute also contains specific limitations periods, including a general framework based on when the Attorney General discovers or reasonably should have discovered the fraud, subject to an outside limit, as well as a separate six-year period tied to the fraudulent activity.

Protecting Your Rights in a Nevada Qui Tam Case

False Claims Act and qui tam cases require much more than proving that an employer or contractor made a mistake. The applicable statute generally focuses on knowing conduct and other defined requirements. The government entity involved, the nature of the claim, the evidence available, previous disclosures, and the timing of the filing can all affect the case.

For employees, contractors, and agents, the employment consequences can be just as important as the underlying fraud allegations. Both federal and Nevada law provide specific protections against retaliation, but the requirements and remedies depend on which statute applies.

Frequently Asked Questions

About Milan Chatterjee

This article was prepared by Milan Chatterjee, a Nevada and California licensed attorney and founder of Best Employment Attorney, the dedicated employment law practice of Milan Legal.

Milan represents employees and employers throughout Las Vegas, Reno, and across Nevada in workplace disputes involving retaliation, whistleblower claims, wrongful termination, discrimination, wage and hour violations, employment contracts, severance agreements, and related employment matters.

He earned his Juris Doctor from UCLA School of Law and also studied at New York University School of Law as a visiting student. Before entering private practice, Milan served as Associate Compliance Counsel at Las Vegas Sands Corporation, where he advised on employment compliance, workplace investigations, corporate governance, internal policies, workforce restructurings, severance matters, and enterprise risk management.

Today, Milan combines that corporate legal experience with a focused employment law practice representing employees and employers throughout Nevada.

Conclusion

False Claims Act and qui tam cases involve specific federal and Nevada requirements concerning government fraud, evidence, filing procedures, government intervention, and whistleblower protections. Potential relators should preserve relevant information, understand which law applies, and consider how timing, prior disclosures, and retaliation protections may affect their rights. Because these cases can involve complex statutory requirements, early legal review can help clarify the available options.