Kappouta v. Valiant Integrated Services, LLC.

Under DCWPA, a disinterested observer would need to reasonably conclude that the disclosure was a violation of law related to a defense contract.

Kappouta filed suit under the Defense Contractor Whistleblower Protection Act (DCWPA), 10 U.S.C. § 4701. The district court dismissed her complaint and she appealed. Kappouta argued that under DCWPA, because a coworker assaulted her in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(5), the violation of that statute qualifies as a "violation of law," which affords her protection under the Act. Under § 4701(a)(1)(A), “[a]n employee of a contractor . . . may not be discharged, demoted, or otherwise discriminated against as a reprisal for disclosing to a person or body . . . information that the employee reasonably believes is evidence of . . . a violation of law, rule, or regulation related to a Department contract (including the competition for or negotiation of a contract) or grant.” 10
U.S.C. § 4701(a)(1)(A). The Court reasoned that a violation of law must be related to the defense contract to be protected. A disinterested observer would need to reasonably conclude that the disclosure was a violation of law related to a defense contract. Coons v. Sec’y of U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 383 F.3d 879, 890 (9th Cir. 2004). The Court held that the incident bore no relation to her job duties and therefore lacked the sufficient nexus to fall under a DCWPA claim. AFFIRMED.