UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
THOMAS THORNTON,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 25-cv-2155
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Thomas Thornton alleges that his former employer, the National Academy of
Sciences (“NAS”), retaliated against him for complaining of race discrimination, in violation of
the False Claims Act, the D.C. Human Rights Act, and District of Columbia common law. See
Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1-6. NAS moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See generally Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 6. For the following reasons,
the court will GRANT NAS’s Motion to Dismiss as to the False Claims Act count and remand the
case to D.C. Superior Court for adjudication of the remaining local-law claims.
I. BACKGROUND
Thornton, a White man, was employed by NAS as Director of the Board on Environmental
Change and Society from November 2021 to August 2024. Compl. ¶¶ 6, 7, 30. Thornton reported
to Carlotta Arthur, the Executive Director of the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education, who reports to Gregory Symmes, Chief Program Officer and Executive Officer. Id.
¶¶ 10–11.
Page 1 of 6 In 2023, NAS assembled a team of experts, including several Indigenous scholars, to “carry
out a consensus study on the co-production of environmental knowledge to assess the field and
recommend ways to effectively integrate Western Science and Indigenous and Local Knowledge
of environmental change for societal benefit.” Id. ¶¶ 17, 20. NAS received funding for the study
in part from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Id. ¶ 19. In conducting the study,
NAS maintained primary responsibility for drawing the applicable conclusions and preparing the
report in accordance with its existing policies and procedures. Id. ¶¶ 21–22. According to
Thornton, Arthur and Symmes “ignored or silenced Indigenous voices during the study,” including
by “kick[ing] a highly respected Indigenous scholar off the committee when he suggested an
alternative approach.” Id. ¶ 28.
Thornton alleges that NAS employed “racist ideology and methodology in conducting the
study” by placing “Western ‘white’ concepts of science on a higher level than Indigenous . . .
concepts.” Id. ¶ 24. Thornton claims he “tried to support giving the Indigenous scholars and
committee members a greater role,” but “was rebuffed” by Arthur and Symmes. Id. ¶ 29. In
December 2023, Thornton filed an internal complaint against Arthur, alleging she discriminated
against and made false allegations about him. Id. ¶ 12. Thornton was placed on paid
administrative leave for two months while the investigation was pending. Id. ¶¶ 13–14. He alleges
that upon his return, Arthur and Symmes retaliated against him by “shifting resources away from
his projects,” “reducing [his] regularly scheduled meetings,” and “refus[ing] to engage in
mediation.” Id. ¶ 16. In June 2024, Thornton was terminated; his termination letter cited his
“commitment to outside activities” and the “current state” of the Board on Environmental Change
and Society. Id. ¶ 30–31. The study was also subsequently terminated. Id. ¶ 34.
Page 2 of 6 Thornton alleges that the “use of federal funds . . . to support a racist study was a misuse
of funding and constituted a violation of the Federal False Claims Act” and that he was retaliated
against and defamed in violation of District of Columbia law. Id. ¶¶ 25, 42–60. He seeks to be
reinstated at NAS and $2,000,000 in backpay, benefits, and compensatory damages. Id. at 10–11.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) “tests the legal sufficiency of a
complaint.” Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2022). A “complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007)). In other words, the plaintiff must plead “factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The court must assume all “well-pleaded factual
allegations” are true, id. at 679, and “grant plaintiffs the benefit of all inferences that can be derived
from the facts alleged,” Kowal v. MCI Commc’ns Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
III. ANALYSIS
The False Claims Act’s “anti-retaliation provision protects whistleblowers ‘who seek to
expose or to prevent government fraud.’” United States ex rel. Kini v. Tata Consultancy Servs.,
Ltd, 146 F.4th 1184, 1189 (D.C. Cir. 2025) (quoting Singletary v. Howard Univ., 939 F.3d 287,
293 (D.C. Cir. 2019)). Such claims are reserved for defendants “who knowingly defraud the
government—for example, a company that fraudulently overcharges the government for goods,”
or “a health clinic that provides the government false information to obtain Medicaid
reimbursement.” Abdelhamid v. Lane Constr. Corp., 744 F. Supp. 3d 10, 22 (D.D.C. 2024). To
prevail on a False Claims Act whistleblower claim, an employee must demonstrate that she was
Page 3 of 6 discriminated against “because of” acts taken “in furtherance of an action” under the statute or
“other efforts to stop 1 or more violations” of the statute. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h). An employee’s
actions are “in furtherance of” an action under the statute “if she ‘investigat[es] matters that
reasonably could lead to,’ or have a ‘distinct possibility’ of leading to, a ‘viable False Claims Act
case.’” Singletary, 939 F.3d at 295 (quoting Hoyte v. American Nat’l Red Cross, 518 F.3d 61, 66,
68–69 (D.C. Cir. 2008)). “Dissatisfaction with one’s treatment on the job is not enough”: “the
plaintiff’s investigation must concern ‘false or fraudulent claims’ submitted for federal funding.”
Id. (quoting United States ex rel. Yesudian v. Howard Univ., 153 F.3d 731, 740 (D.C. Cir. 1998)).
The court is unpersuaded that Thornton has plausibly alleged that his internal complaint
about Arthur’s management of the study constituted an investigation into conduct that could
reasonably have violated the statute. Thornton’s theory appears to be that engaging in
discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study necessarily constitutes the
misuse of federal funds in violation of the False Claims Act. See Compl. ¶ 62–65. But this Circuit
has “unequivocally stated that ‘an employee’s investigation of nothing more than his employer’s
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
THOMAS THORNTON,
Plaintiff,
v. No. 25-cv-2155
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff Thomas Thornton alleges that his former employer, the National Academy of
Sciences (“NAS”), retaliated against him for complaining of race discrimination, in violation of
the False Claims Act, the D.C. Human Rights Act, and District of Columbia common law. See
Compl. ¶ 1, ECF No. 1-6. NAS moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See generally Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 6. For the following reasons,
the court will GRANT NAS’s Motion to Dismiss as to the False Claims Act count and remand the
case to D.C. Superior Court for adjudication of the remaining local-law claims.
I. BACKGROUND
Thornton, a White man, was employed by NAS as Director of the Board on Environmental
Change and Society from November 2021 to August 2024. Compl. ¶¶ 6, 7, 30. Thornton reported
to Carlotta Arthur, the Executive Director of the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education, who reports to Gregory Symmes, Chief Program Officer and Executive Officer. Id.
¶¶ 10–11.
Page 1 of 6 In 2023, NAS assembled a team of experts, including several Indigenous scholars, to “carry
out a consensus study on the co-production of environmental knowledge to assess the field and
recommend ways to effectively integrate Western Science and Indigenous and Local Knowledge
of environmental change for societal benefit.” Id. ¶¶ 17, 20. NAS received funding for the study
in part from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Id. ¶ 19. In conducting the study,
NAS maintained primary responsibility for drawing the applicable conclusions and preparing the
report in accordance with its existing policies and procedures. Id. ¶¶ 21–22. According to
Thornton, Arthur and Symmes “ignored or silenced Indigenous voices during the study,” including
by “kick[ing] a highly respected Indigenous scholar off the committee when he suggested an
alternative approach.” Id. ¶ 28.
Thornton alleges that NAS employed “racist ideology and methodology in conducting the
study” by placing “Western ‘white’ concepts of science on a higher level than Indigenous . . .
concepts.” Id. ¶ 24. Thornton claims he “tried to support giving the Indigenous scholars and
committee members a greater role,” but “was rebuffed” by Arthur and Symmes. Id. ¶ 29. In
December 2023, Thornton filed an internal complaint against Arthur, alleging she discriminated
against and made false allegations about him. Id. ¶ 12. Thornton was placed on paid
administrative leave for two months while the investigation was pending. Id. ¶¶ 13–14. He alleges
that upon his return, Arthur and Symmes retaliated against him by “shifting resources away from
his projects,” “reducing [his] regularly scheduled meetings,” and “refus[ing] to engage in
mediation.” Id. ¶ 16. In June 2024, Thornton was terminated; his termination letter cited his
“commitment to outside activities” and the “current state” of the Board on Environmental Change
and Society. Id. ¶ 30–31. The study was also subsequently terminated. Id. ¶ 34.
Page 2 of 6 Thornton alleges that the “use of federal funds . . . to support a racist study was a misuse
of funding and constituted a violation of the Federal False Claims Act” and that he was retaliated
against and defamed in violation of District of Columbia law. Id. ¶¶ 25, 42–60. He seeks to be
reinstated at NAS and $2,000,000 in backpay, benefits, and compensatory damages. Id. at 10–11.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) “tests the legal sufficiency of a
complaint.” Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2022). A “complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007)). In other words, the plaintiff must plead “factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The court must assume all “well-pleaded factual
allegations” are true, id. at 679, and “grant plaintiffs the benefit of all inferences that can be derived
from the facts alleged,” Kowal v. MCI Commc’ns Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
III. ANALYSIS
The False Claims Act’s “anti-retaliation provision protects whistleblowers ‘who seek to
expose or to prevent government fraud.’” United States ex rel. Kini v. Tata Consultancy Servs.,
Ltd, 146 F.4th 1184, 1189 (D.C. Cir. 2025) (quoting Singletary v. Howard Univ., 939 F.3d 287,
293 (D.C. Cir. 2019)). Such claims are reserved for defendants “who knowingly defraud the
government—for example, a company that fraudulently overcharges the government for goods,”
or “a health clinic that provides the government false information to obtain Medicaid
reimbursement.” Abdelhamid v. Lane Constr. Corp., 744 F. Supp. 3d 10, 22 (D.D.C. 2024). To
prevail on a False Claims Act whistleblower claim, an employee must demonstrate that she was
Page 3 of 6 discriminated against “because of” acts taken “in furtherance of an action” under the statute or
“other efforts to stop 1 or more violations” of the statute. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h). An employee’s
actions are “in furtherance of” an action under the statute “if she ‘investigat[es] matters that
reasonably could lead to,’ or have a ‘distinct possibility’ of leading to, a ‘viable False Claims Act
case.’” Singletary, 939 F.3d at 295 (quoting Hoyte v. American Nat’l Red Cross, 518 F.3d 61, 66,
68–69 (D.C. Cir. 2008)). “Dissatisfaction with one’s treatment on the job is not enough”: “the
plaintiff’s investigation must concern ‘false or fraudulent claims’ submitted for federal funding.”
Id. (quoting United States ex rel. Yesudian v. Howard Univ., 153 F.3d 731, 740 (D.C. Cir. 1998)).
The court is unpersuaded that Thornton has plausibly alleged that his internal complaint
about Arthur’s management of the study constituted an investigation into conduct that could
reasonably have violated the statute. Thornton’s theory appears to be that engaging in
discriminatory conduct while conducting a federally funded study necessarily constitutes the
misuse of federal funds in violation of the False Claims Act. See Compl. ¶ 62–65. But this Circuit
has “unequivocally stated that ‘an employee’s investigation of nothing more than his employer’s
non-compliance with federal or state regulations’ is not enough to support a whistleblower claim.”
Hoyte, 518 F.3d at 67 (quoting Yesudian, 153 F.3d at 740). The complaint must include some
evidence of “false certifications of compliance . . . in connection with funding claims” and that the
plaintiff’s investigation “coincided with [the] reporting period.” Singletary, 939 F.3d at 298, 301.
Thornton’s Complaint includes neither.
In any case, even assuming that Thornton sufficiently alleged protected conduct, his
Complaint lacks nonconclusory allegations giving rise to a reasonable inference that he was
terminated or otherwise discriminated against “because of” such activity. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h);
see Singletary, 939 F.3d at 299. Given that he was terminated seven months after he lodged his
Page 4 of 6 internal complaint, the mere fact that his discharge occurred after the complaint is insufficient,
standing alone, to provide the necessary causal link. See Compl. ¶ 12, 30; cf. U.S. ex rel. Schweizer
v. Oce N.V., 677 F.3d 1228, 1240 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (determining causal connection existed where
relator was fired two weeks after disclosing fraud suspicions). Nor does he proffer any evidence
supporting his assertion that Arther and Symmes “shift[ed] resources away from his projects,”
“reduc[ed] Thornton’s regularly scheduled meetings,” and “refused to engage in mediation”
because of the investigation. Compl. ¶ 45. Because Thornton has failed to plausibly plead the
necessary elements of a False Claims Act retaliation claim, dismissal is appropriate.
“Federal district courts are given supplemental (or ‘pendent’) jurisdiction over state claims
that ‘form part of the same case or controversy’ as federal claims over which they have original
jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). By the same token, they ‘may decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over [such] claim[s] . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it
has original jurisdiction.’ 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).” Turner v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 56 F. Supp. 3d
32, 36 (D.D.C. 2014). “When all federal claims are eliminated before trial, . . . judicial economy,
convenience, fairness, and comity . . . point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the
remaining state-law claims.” Id. (cleaned up). Because, in dismissing Thornton’s claim for
retaliation under the False Claims Act, the court has dismissed all claims over which it has original
jurisdiction, and the case has not progressed in federal court past NAS’s Motion to Dismiss, the
court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Thornton’s claims under District of
Columbia law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). But because NAS removed the case here, the court
will remand the matter to Superior Court, where Thornton may prosecute his local causes of action.
See Floyd v. PNC Mortg., 216 F. Supp. 3d 63, 69 (D.D.C. 2016).
Page 5 of 6 IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with respect to his federal law
claim and the case is remanded to the D.C. Superior Court for adjudication of the remaining claims.
A separate order will follow.
Date: November 7, 2025
Tanya S. Chutkan TANYA S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge
Page 6 of 6