In United States ex. rel Paige v. BAE Sys. Tech. the Sixth Circuit held that an arbitration agreement which was limited to disputes arising out of an employment contract, did not reach an action brought under the False Claims Act ("FCA"). The Sixth Circuit found that there were no grounds for compelling arbitration because the FCA retaliation claim was brought under a statute. Specifically, the Sixth Circuit narrowly construed the arbitration clause, which compelled arbitration for disputes "arising from this Agreement" and not for disputes relating to the agreement or employment generally. With this decision the Sixth Circuit continued to muddy what exactly is needed to prove that parties originally intended to arbitrate a given issue and suggested that deference to arbitrability may be lesser than it was before. In this the Court is certainly not alone, though BAE appears to emphasize starkly contrasting views on the ease of proving arbitrability regarding statutorily based actions.
Alexander Park, A Narrowing View: The Sixth Circuit and BAE, 7 Y.B. Arb. & Mediation 215 (2015).