Is Grocery Chain's FCA Win in the Bag?
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.20.18
On March 22, 2018, an Indiana state trial court dismissed a qui tam action alleging that a large grocery chain knowingly failed to collect and remit state sales tax on hundreds of goods. State of Indiana ex. rel Harmeyer v. The Kroger Co. et al. Under Indiana law, the state’s gross retail tax does not apply to “food and food ingredients,” but it does apply to candy, soft drinks, dietary supplements, and prepared foods. Relator claimed 1,400 food items were mischaracterized as tax-exempt, for example, claiming protein bars are taxable candy rather than nontaxable food.
The judge held that the complaint failed to identify any particular false statement, noting also that the relator, whose similar case against a grocer in another state had been dismissed, was not an employee of the grocery chain, had no inside knowledge of what took place within the company, and merely presumed that the defendant’s characterization of the items as tax-exempt was false and done recklessly. The court could not determine whether the 1,400 items constituted a substantial percentage of the products sold by defendant, and therefore, even if they were mischaracterized, the court could not presume recklessness from that number. Last week, relator filed his appeal.
The dismissal is a blow to serial qui tam relators who, with no inside information, bring claims against companies based solely on a presumption that they must be non-compliant with an industry regulation. The case also reflects an uptick in FCA litigation involving underpayment state taxes (previous post here). While the federal FCA bars tax-related actions (31 USC § 3729(d)), companies must still consider potential exposure in the jurisdictions that permit FCA suits arising from state tax matters.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26

