United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
William J. Martínez Judge
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.)
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
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
before the Court is Loyal Source's Motion to Dismiss.
(ECF No. 15.) For the reasons explained below, the Court
denies the motion.
RULE 12(b)(6) STANDARD
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).
Court accepts the following as true for purposes of resolving
Loyal Source's motion.
is an administrative nurse. (¶ 1.) She worked for
Loyal Source from at least 2012 until early 2016.
(¶¶ 1, 4.) ...