Could your HR team handle a case like this? Find out what's at stake
A whistleblower retaliation lawsuit from a public sector attorney is moving forward after a Tenth Circuit decision on November 3, 2025.
Mary Joanne Deziel Timmins, who served as general counsel and litigation counsel for Colorado’s Green Mountain Water and Sanitation District, alleges she was fired for raising concerns about board members’ conduct. According to her complaint, Timmins discovered that some board members were engaging in what she believed to be corrupt and potentially unlawful behavior, including holding private meetings, using personal emails for district business, and consulting with an outside attorney who was allegedly conflicted.
Timmins says she repeatedly advised the board during executive sessions that these actions could violate Colorado’s open meetings law and risk the district’s attorney-client privilege. She also claims she warned board members to stop using personal emails for official business and to preserve all relevant communications, especially given ongoing litigation.
Despite her warnings, Timmins alleges that board members continued these practices. According to the complaint, some members admitted during depositions to destroying texts and emails related to district business. After her private warnings went unheeded, Timmins says she took her concerns public – speaking at board meetings, talking to reporters, and discussing the issues with local residents. She alleges that she disclosed the board’s alleged violations, the risk to the district’s finances, and what she described as a failure by board members to distinguish between their fiduciary duties and personal interests.
Timmins was later terminated from her position. She filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming she was retaliated against for exercising her First Amendment rights. The district court dismissed her claim, holding that her speech was made pursuant to her official duties as a public employee and therefore not protected by the First Amendment.
On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reversed that decision. The appellate panel found that Timmins’ statements to the press and private citizens, while related to her job, were not part of her official duties as general or litigation counsel. The court emphasized that public employees do not lose First Amendment protection simply because their speech concerns their work, especially when speaking outside the chain of command. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
For HR professionals, especially in the public sector, this case highlights the boundaries between an employee’s official responsibilities and their rights as private citizens. The outcome may affect how public employers respond when staff raise concerns about workplace conduct in public forums.
The court’s decision means Timmins can pursue her claims, but her allegations have not been proven and the case is still ongoing. As the case develops, HR leaders should pay attention to its implications for whistleblower protections and employee speech in government workplaces.
