Alden v. AECOM Technology Corporation

Background

Peter Alden represented himself in this litigation. He worked as a technical draftsperson for contractors at the NASA Ames Research Center between 1997 and 2012. In 2009, while employed by AECOM Technology Corporation, he complained about AECOM practices that he said impaired drawing productivity. He sent a complaint to Anthony Wong, whom Alden described as the NASA contracting officer’s technical representative and government liaison for the AECOM contract. AECOM terminated Alden’s employment on May 7, 2012.

Alden later filed a complaint with the NASA Office of Inspector General alleging that AECOM had defrauded the government and retaliated against him. The Office of Inspector General denied his request for relief in 2016.

Alden’s original case asserted retaliation under the Defense Contractor Whistleblower Protection Act, 10 U.S.C. § 2409, and a First Amendment free-speech claim against AECOM and NASA. After he amended the complaint, he asserted four claims against AECOM—statutory whistleblower retaliation, a First Amendment claim, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional harm—and one Administrative Procedure Act claim against NASA. The court denied AECOM’s motion to dismiss the whistleblower claim but dismissed all other claims against AECOM and NASA with prejudice. The whistleblower claim against AECOM was the only claim remaining when discovery closed and AECOM moved for summary judgment.

Applicable statute

The court determined that the 2008 version of the Defense Contractor Whistleblower Protection Act applied. Alden’s termination occurred in 2012, and the AECOM-NASA contract predated the 2013 amendments. The parties had not presented evidence that the contract had been modified to incorporate the later provisions.

The 2008 statute prohibited retaliation against a contractor employee who disclosed specified information to listed recipients, including certain members of Congress, inspectors general, the Government Accountability Office, Department of Defense employees responsible for contract oversight or management, and authorized officials of an agency or the Department of Justice. For the types of misconduct at issue here—gross mismanagement, waste, or a violation of law—the statute referred to Department of Defense contracts or grants. The statute also covered disclosures about a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.

Reasons for the ruling

First, the court held that Alden’s reports to AECOM management could not support his claim. A contractor was not among the authorized recipients listed in the 2008 statute. The court also noted that Alden’s complaints were largely about AECOM’s own conduct and that the 2008 statute did not expressly protect reports to contractor management, unlike the later version.

Second, the court considered Alden’s reports to Wong. Wong was a NASA employee, and Alden argued that Wong was an authorized agency official with contract responsibilities and signature authority. The court did not decide that Wong could never qualify as an authorized recipient. Instead, it concluded that Alden had not shown that his complaints to Wong were protected because the complaints were also about Wong’s conduct and relationship with AECOM officials. The court found the case similar to decisions holding that the statute did not protect disclosures made directly to an alleged wrongdoer.

Third, the court independently held that the 2008 statute did not cover Alden’s complaints about alleged mismanagement and waste involving a NASA contract. The court found that Alden’s complaints concerned productivity, alleged gross mismanagement, and alleged abuse of authority—not a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. Although Alden argued that the exclusion of NASA contracts was a drafting mistake and that the statute should be interpreted according to what he viewed as Congress’s intent, the court concluded that it could not amend the statute Congress enacted.

Disposition

The court granted AECOM’s motion for summary judgment on Alden’s sole remaining claim. It did not reach AECOM’s arguments that Alden could not establish the required timing between his reports and termination or that AECOM would have taken the same disciplinary action without the reports. The court also did not reach the parties’ other evidentiary objections.