An engineer had formerly been involved with manufacturing nuclear reactor parts that were to be put onto U.S. Navy vessels. However, he was fired after superiors heard he had been complaining to...

An engineer had formerly been involved with manufacturing nuclear reactor parts that were to be put onto U.S. Navy vessels. However, he was fired after superiors heard he had been complaining to coworkers about quality control problems he felt he had observed. Such complaints were determined by his superiors as likely breaking the company’s Navy contract. Subsequently, the engineer was fired. The engineer then brought suit against the company for wrongful discharge in 2005. However, he brought the suit in a federal court. His reasoning for suing the company in a federal court was that the firing violated two federal statutes. Specifically, both statutes banned the submission of untrue claims to the military or federal government. Generally, these statutes concern fraud in government contracting, although the engineer felt that his firing could be loosely linked to government statutes. A wrongful discharge suit, however, is generally subject to state law. Therefore, the company attempted to move the suit from the federal court to a state court, arguing that the federal court had absolutely no jurisdiction over the case. Was the case moved to a state court, or did the federal court want to hear the case because the firing could be loosely tied to federal statutes? Eastman v. Marine Mechanical Corp., 438 F.3d 544; 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 3530 (6th Cir. 2006).