SpecPro Professional Services, LLC, is an environmental services firm that assists government agencies with the preparation of environmental assessments. The U.S. Army Reserve Command hired SpecPro to assist in preparing an environmental assessment for a new helicopter training area.
Aaron Killgore, an employee at SpecPro, was assigned to this project. Killgore had a small team of colleagues and reported to his supervisor William Emerson. Killgore also reported to Chief Laura Caballero, the Army Reserve’s project leader.
Killgore and his team discovered that there were discrepancies between the facts they had found on the ground and what the Army Reserve wanted SpecPro to report in their environmental assessment. When Caballero directed Killgore to omit certain information from the report, Killgore pushed back and told Caballero that failing to report certain facts would violate a federal law called NEPA and other federal regulations.
Following this pushback, Caballero called Emerson to raise concerns about Killgore. Emerson then told Killgore to complete the report on time and to exclude the information that Caballero wanted excluded. Killgore again explained that this might be illegal but Emerson told Killgore that their chief goal was to keep Caballero happy to win any future Army Reserve contracts.
Killgore and his team eventually drafted the environmental assessment and included the information that Caballero wanted excluded. Caballero then instructed the team to take out the information and complained to Emerson and the general manager of SpecPro during a meeting. After this meeting, Emerson fired Killgore.
Killgore then filed a lawsuit against SpecPro, asserting that his termination violated the California Whistleblower Protection Act (CWPA). Labor Code section 1102.5 provides whistleblower protections to employees who disclose wrongdoing to authorities. Specifically, section 1102.5 prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for sharing information the employee “has reasonable cause to believe . . . discloses a violation of state or federal statute” or of “a local, state, or federal rule or regulation” with a government agency, with a person with authority over the employee, or with another employee who has authority to investigate or correct the violation. [emphasis added].
The District Court dismissed Killgore’s lawsuit because it ruled that Killgore’s communications to Emerson and Caballero were not protected by the CWPA. The District Court decided that because Emerson, a private citizen in the employ of a private business, did not have the power to correct the Army Reserve’s noncompliance, Killgore’s communications to Emerson were not protected. In doing so, the District Court interpreted section 1102.5(b) to mean that a protected disclosure must be made to “a person with authority over the employee” who also has the authority to “investigate, discover, or correct” the violation.
Emerson then appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit took up the question of whether Killgore’s communications were protected.
The Ninth Circuit found that the District Court incorrectly interpreted the CWPA by limiting the avenues for employees to report wrongdoing. The Ninth Circuit held that the CWPA prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who disclose potential wrongdoing through any one of several avenues: government or law enforcement agencies; a person with authority over the employee; other employees with authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance; or any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry.
Killgore v. SpecPro Pro. Servs., LLC, 51 F.4th 973 (9th Cir. 2022).
Note:
This case is a helpful reminder of the statutory framework for whistleblower claims. If an employee comes to a supervisor, or to any individual who has any authority to investigate or correct a violation of the law, it should be treated as a protected CWPA communication and investigated. In general, employees who bring concerns of wrongdoing to their employers or supervisors should be taken seriously, and their concerns promptly investigated.
