Oja

Oja v. U.S. Army Corp.

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 13, 200603-35877California7,718 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS1

A. Background

Oja served as Regulatory Chief of the Alaska District of the USACE from 1985 until 1998. During his tenure at the USACE, Oja avers that he “was frequently critical of the USACE, accusing the agency of thwarting his efforts to enforce wetlands violations and bending to pressure from oil companies.” Oja made numerous protective disclosures under the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, Pub. L. No. 101- 12, 103 Stat. 16 (codified in scattered sections of 5 U.S.C.),2 1 Given that the district court granted the USACE’s motion for summary judgment, we view the alleged facts in the light most favorable to Oja, the non-moving party. See Am. Bankers Ass’n v. Gould, 412 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir. 2005) (“We must determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, whether there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law.”). 2 A protective disclosure is “any disclosure of information by an employee or applicant which the employee or applicant reasonably 2660 OJA v. USACE and documented repeated statutory violations by…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.