Archdiocese of New Orleans: FEMA Damage Claims and the Alleged Nonexistent Air-Conditioning Unit

The Archdiocese of New Orleans agreed to pay more than $1 million over Federal Emergency Management Agency damage claims that allegedly included a nonexistent air-conditioning unit. The government alleged that the Archdiocese knowingly signed funding certifications containing false damage descriptions and repair estimates prepared by AECOM. For someone who knew the buildings before Hurricane Katrina, the allegation is immediately recognizable: a claim to repair equipment that was never there. That detail mattered in a program where repair estimates could open the door to funding an entire replacement building.

What the Archdiocese Certified to FEMA

The government alleged that, from 2007 through 2013, the Archdiocese signed certifications for Federal Emergency Management Agency funding that contained false information about storm damage and repair costs. The alleged descriptions included damage to a nonexistent central air-conditioning unit and a misstatement of a facility’s square footage.

According to the government, AECOM, an architecture and engineering firm, prepared the false descriptions and estimates that the Archdiocese knowingly certified. The government’s case reached both the technical work and the applicant’s assurance that the information was accurate.

This is the practical connection to false certifications in federal grant claims. The funding at issue was public assistance for institutional applicants recovering from the hurricane. Here, the agency hired a contractor to help evaluate disaster assistance requests, while the institutions sought money to repair or replace their facilities.

The government’s later AECOM settlement identified the cafeteria at the Archdiocese’s St. Raphael the Archangel School among the facilities involved. Its account put the physical building at the center of the claim: its design, its damage and whether it qualified for replacement.

We expect disaster aid to rebuild what a storm destroyed. Not equipment that, according to the government, never existed.

Why the Repair Estimate Could Pay for a Replacement

Under the Katrina funding rules described in the Justice Department’s AECOM announcement, the agency limited assistance to the cost of repair. Full replacement funding became available when repair costs exceeded 50% of the facility’s replacement cost.

That comparison gave the damage estimate a second job. It helped determine how much repair work was needed, and it could also determine whether the agency would pay for replacement. A false description of damaged equipment could tip a repair job into a replacement building.

The Justice Department described AECOM’s requests as including damage descriptions, repair-cost estimates and replacement-cost estimates. The government alleged that false requests resulted in applicants receiving more assistance than FEMA’s rules allowed, including cases in which facilities qualified only for repair funding.

The government’s intervention announcement also explains why the building’s earlier condition mattered. The program funded restoration to the facility’s pre-disaster condition. AECOM and the applicants were responsible for accurate information about the design before the storm and the damage the storm caused.

For an insider, the useful knowledge can begin there. What equipment was installed? How large was the facility? What did the site evaluation say had been damaged? Those facts feed the estimates that determine what taxpayers are asked to fund.

Who Prepared and Reviewed the Estimates?

The Justice Department said AECOM was responsible for site evaluations and for preparing and reviewing damage and repair estimates used to determine applicants’ eligibility. The government alleged that an AECOM project officer submitted false disaster-assistance requests and that supervisors reviewed applications without correcting materially false descriptions of design, damage and replacement eligibility.

By 2011, according to the government, AECOM management knew of systemic problems with false and inaccurate information going to the agency but failed to notify the government.

Those allegations identify different decisions inside the contractor: preparing an estimate, reviewing it and responding when problems became known. The applicant’s certification added another decision. A person familiar with one part of that work may be able to explain what a later reviewer or signer saw.

That is why we look beyond the final total. A site evaluation, the estimate built from it and the version certified to FEMA can explain how a description moved through the process.

The Archdiocese, Xavier and AECOM Settled Separately

An AECOM project specialist brought the whistleblower case, and the United States joined part of it. The resulting settlements addressed the contractor and the applicants separately.

On June 3, 2020, the government announced that Xavier University of Louisiana had agreed to pay $12 million over its alleged role in submitting false and misleading repair estimates prepared by AECOM. The government alleged that Xavier received excessive assistance for its gymnasium, student center and electrical grid.

The Archdiocese settlement followed. A bankruptcy court approved it in October 2021. The department said the settlement amount reflected the Archdiocese’s financial condition. The Archdiocese also agreed to cooperate in the case.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency paid AECOM more than $300 million between 2005 and 2019 for technical assistance on the Katrina recovery. AECOM agreed to pay $11.8 million to resolve the false-claims allegations in the settlement announced on October 24, 2023. With that settlement, the Justice Department reported nearly $25 million recovered in connection with the disaster-assistance applications AECOM prepared.

The Justice Department’s Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, Fraud Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Louisiana handled the case, with assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Office of Chief Counsel. The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General provided investigative support.

What Proof Do You Need as a Whistleblower?

For FEMA damage-estimate allegations like these, the useful evidence connects the actual facility to the description, the cost estimates and the certification used to obtain funding. Our work starts with the part of that connection you know firsthand.

An employee familiar with a building may be able to explain why the equipment description makes no sense. Someone who worked on the estimate may know how a repair item entered the calculation. Someone involved in review or certification may know which description the applicant ultimately endorsed.

We compare the facility’s pre-disaster design with the claimed damage, then examine how the repair and replacement estimates used that description. We also examine what reviewers knew and which information reached the applicant’s certification. The government alleged knowing false submissions, so the decisions behind the paperwork matter alongside the physical discrepancy.

The broader evidence question is which record tests the request for payment. Here, knowing the facility can make a technical estimate intelligible: whether the described equipment existed, whether the stated size matched the building and how those representations affected the request. You may understand a part of that story that the funding paperwork alone cannot explain.

False FEMA Reports Can Also Hide Money Already Paid

A different FEMA case shows why an applicant’s reports matter after the initial estimate. In the Clearlake Oaks County Water District settlement, the government alleged that the district kept federal and state reimbursement for storm expenses insurance had already covered. Its periodic and closeout reports allegedly denied the excess funding.

There, the comparison was between payments received and what the recipient reported. In the Archdiocese matter, it was between the facilities and the damage descriptions certified for funding. Both cases put the recipient’s account of its need for assistance beside information that allegedly contradicted it.

How Much Money Can a Whistleblower Get From a Qui Tam Lawsuit?

A whistleblower case under the False Claims Act can pay 15% to 30% of what the government recovers. The Justice Department reported that the project specialist received a whistleblower reward as part of the Archdiocese settlement.

The same whistleblower received approximately $2.3 million from the Xavier settlement. In its later AECOM announcement, the Justice Department said the whistleblower would receive more than $2.4 million from that settlement. The person who brought the case worked for the contractor that wrote the estimates.

You Know the Building Behind the Claim

If a FEMA application describes equipment or damage you know was never there, talk with our whistleblower experts about what you saw. We work with you to build the case around the facility, the estimates and the people who approved them, and bring in disaster-relief whistleblower lawyers who understand FEMA funding. We stay beside you throughout the process, working to build your strongest disaster-relief whistleblower case.