Wilczynski v. Loyal Source Government Services, LLC

          ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

          William J. Martínez Judge

         Plaintiff Kristin Wilczynski (“Wilczynski”) brings a wrongful discharge action under a federal whistleblower statute, 10 U.S.C. § 2409, against her former employer, Defendant Loyal Source Government Services, LLC (“Loyal Source”). (ECF No. 14.)

         The relevant portion of the statute reads as follows:

An employee of a contractor [with the Department of Defense] . . . may not be discharged, demoted, or otherwise discriminated against as a reprisal for disclosing to [a Department of Defense employee responsible for contract oversight or management] information that the employee reasonably believes is evidence of the following:

(A) Gross mismanagement of a Department of Defense contract or grant, a gross waste of Department funds, an abuse of authority relating to a Department contract or grant, or a violation of law, rule, or regulation related to a Department contract (including the competition for or negotiation of a contract) or grant.

* * *

(C) A substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.

10 U.S.C. § 2409(a)(1). Wilczynski contends that she was discharged at the Air Force's behest, in violation of the statute, for complaining about a change in how primary care doctors' referrals to specialty practitioners were handled at the various military installations in and around Colorado Springs.

         Currently before the Court is Loyal Source's Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 15.) For the reasons explained below, the Court denies the motion.

         I. RULE 12(b)(6) STANDARD

          Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a party may move to dismiss a claim in a complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” The 12(b)(6) standard requires the Court to “assume the truth of the plaintiff's well-pleaded factual allegations and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Ridge at Red Hawk, LLC v. Schneider, 493 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir. 2007). In ruling on such a motion, the dispositive inquiry is “whether the complaint contains ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Granting a motion to dismiss “is a harsh remedy which must be cautiously studied, not only to effectuate the spirit of the liberal rules of pleading but also to protect the interests of justice.” Dias v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 567 F.3d 1169, 1178 (10th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Thus, ‘a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable, and that a recovery is very remote and unlikely.'” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).

         II. BACKGROUND

         The Court accepts the following as true for purposes of resolving Loyal Source's motion.

         Wilczynski is an administrative nurse. (¶ 1.)^[1] She worked for Loyal Source from at least 2012 until early 2016. (¶¶ 1, 4.) ...