Killgore v. Specpro Professional Services, LLC

Background

Aaron Killgore worked for Specpro Professional Services, LLC, an environmental and facilities services firm, from June 2015 until Specpro terminated him on June 22, 2017. He was a program manager and later a senior program manager. Specpro had a contract with the United States Army Reserve to provide environmental and training support services.

One project required an environmental assessment for helicopter training in Conroe, Texas. Killgore alleged that the Army Reserve’s three-month deadline was too short to complete a legally adequate assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. He also alleged that supervisors directed him and his team to omit references to earlier helicopter operations at the site. Killgore said he objected to both the deadline and the omission of prior land-use information.

After a June 22, 2017 meeting about Killgore’s performance, Specpro supervisors decided to terminate him for failing to meet company and customer expectations. Killgore sued, asserting California whistleblower-retaliation and wrongful-termination claims, among others. Specpro removed the case from state court to federal court and moved for partial summary judgment on Counts 1 and 4.

Legal Standard

The court explained that summary judgment must be granted when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the opposing party must produce evidence supporting its claims.

Analysis

California Labor Code Section 1102.5(b)

Section 1102.5(b) protects an employee from retaliation for disclosing information to an appropriate person when the employee reasonably believes the information shows a violation of law. To establish a basic retaliation case, an employee must show protected activity, an adverse employment action, and a causal connection between the two.

The court rejected Killgore’s theory based on the project deadline. It found that the evidence showed he raised concerns about whether the deadline was achievable, but did not show that he told Chief Caballero that the deadline itself violated NEPA. The court also found that statements to Will Emerson, another Specpro employee, did not satisfy the statute because Emerson lacked the power to correct the Army Reserve’s alleged noncompliance. In addition, the court concluded that Killgore’s communications with Caballero occurred through normal work duties and normal reporting channels, which the court held were not protected disclosures under the circumstances.

The court separately rejected the claim concerning the omission of earlier helicopter operations. It held that Killgore did not make a statutory disclosure to Caballero because, according to Killgore’s own allegations, Caballero already knew about and directed the omission. The court also held that Killgore could not reasonably believe the omission necessarily violated NEPA because federal agencies had substantial discretion over whether and how to discuss past actions in an environmental assessment. Specpro’s motion was therefore granted as to both theories under Section 1102.5(b).

California Labor Code Section 1102.5(c)

Section 1102.5(c) protects an employee who refuses to participate in an activity that would violate a statute, rule, or regulation. The court held that merely reporting a suspected violation was not enough; Killgore had to show that he refused to perform the allegedly unlawful activity.

The court found that Killgore did not establish a refusal. He testified that he did not directly refuse Caballero’s instructions, continued working on the environmental assessment, and worked on it until the day Specpro terminated him. The court granted summary judgment on this claim.

Section 1102.6 and Public-Policy Claim

The court did not reach arguments under California Labor Code Section 1102.6, which establishes a burden-shifting framework, because it had already concluded that Killgore’s Section 1102.5 claim failed as a matter of law.

Killgore’s wrongful-termination claim based on public policy rested on his whistleblower-retaliation claim. Because the whistleblower claim failed, the court granted summary judgment on the public-policy claim as well.

Punitive Damages and Judicial Notice

The court granted Specpro’s request concerning punitive damages because Killgore’s request was based on Counts 1 and 4, which were dismissed. The court also granted Specpro’s request for judicial notice of a publicly available government environmental-guidance document.

Disposition

Judge Davila granted Specpro’s motion for partial summary judgment. The order states that Killgore’s whistleblower claim, Count 1, and wrongful-termination-in-violation-of-public-policy claim, Count 4, were dismissed with prejudice. The court stated that nothing in the order affected Counts 2 and 3.