Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, WHISTLEBLOWERS—D.D.C.: Whistleblower’s allegation of D.C. Retirement Board’s retaliatory termination under Dodd-Frank survives challenge, (Sep 4, 2025)

By Rebecca E. Hoffman, J.D.

Employers may have discretion to hire or fire, but not to violate federal prohibitions, the court found.

The District of Columbia’s federal district court declined to dismiss an action brought by the former general counsel of the District of Columbia Retirement Board, in which she alleges that she was terminated in retaliation for alerting the SEC to the Board’s investment adviser’s potential securities law violations (Sampson v. District of Columbia Retirement Board, No. 24-2601 (D.D.C. Aug. 29, 2025)).

The Board claimed sovereign immunity, but the court found that “[f]ederal law restricts the Board’s discretion by prohibiting it from retaliating against whistleblowers, so the claimed immunity—which requires a discretionary act—does not apply.”

The Board manages the pension trust fund for the retirement funds of D.C. firefighters, police officers, and teachers. The Board’s executive director showed Erie Sampson, who worked as the Board’s general counsel and ethics counselor, a text message from the CEO of investment manager Artemis Real Estate Partners that appeared to show the sender had confidential information from a meeting Artemis had not attended. Sampson was concerned that the Board’s investment adviser had unlawfully passed on the confidential information. The executive director said she would “take care” of it, but according to Sampson, it was not handled.

Sampson and risk compliance officer Kimberly Woods gave a presentation to the Board’s trustees to explain the potential issues with the adviser’s compliance practices, but the trustees were “apathetic” and at times “hostile” in response. Sampson and Woods also asked the investment adviser to respond to a “Compliance Questionnaire” that purportedly raised more issues. Sampson and Woods corresponded with the SEC about these issues and informed the Board they had done so. Sampson was placed on administrative leave and subsequently fired in July 2022. Two years later, she brought the instant action alleging whistleblower retaliation under the Dodd-Frank Act.

Immunity? D.C. enjoys sovereign immunity, but “[w]hen a ‘federal statute... specifically prescribes a course of action for governmental actors to follow,’ those actors lack discretion to deviate from that required path,” the court said, quoting Craig v. Not for Profit Hosp. Corp., 626 F. Supp. 3d 87, 100 (D.D.C. 2022). Furthermore, the D.C. Circuit has held that “not every action connected in some way to an employment decision amounts to a discretionary function.” Beebe v. WMATA, 129 F.3d 1283, 1288 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

The Board also argued that Sampson failed to state a claim under Dodd-Frank. The court explained that the whistleblower provision protects those who provide information to the SEC about securities law violations from adverse employment actions with a causal connection to the protected activity.

Claim plausibly alleged. “Placed in the unenviable position of contending that an investment adviser leaking confidential client communications to a potential investment manager does not count as information ‘relating to’ a violation of securities laws, the Board comes up empty,” the court concluded, noting that it was sufficient at this stage for Sampson to allege that she reported to the SEC about the text message, which invokes the requirement for investment advisers to have policies and procedures designed to prevent leaks of nonpublic information. She also reported on the questionnaire, the presentation, and the adviser’s other conduct such as mismanagement of conflicts of interest. “If that sounds like alleged conduct that the SEC might care about, it is,” the court said.

The court also found that the causal connection between Sampson’s protected activity and her termination was plausibly alleged. The Board trustees’ “apathetic” and “hostile” reaction to Sampson’s concerns, the fact that they renewed the adviser’s contract in the same meeting, and the progression to administrative leave and then termination, all support the causal element. The Board argued that Sampson was fired for failing to report the alleged misconduct to the board, but Sampson’s allegations are sufficient to maintain her claim and she does not need to rebut the Board’s arguments at this stage.

The case is No. 24-2601.

Judge: Kelly, T.

Attorneys: Carla Denette Brown (Charlson Bredehoft Cohen Brown & Nadelhaft) for Erie Sampson. Miguel Francisco Eaton (Jones Day) for District of Columbia Retirement Board.

Companies: District of Columbia Retirement Board

Cases: Whistleblowers Discharge Retaliation PensionBenefitPlans DistrictofColumbiaNews