The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court's denial of qualified immunity for three Washington Department of Health officials, allowing a First Amendment retaliation lawsuit to proceed. The decision, filed Jan. 20, 2026, represents a setback for the officials who sought to dismiss the federal civil rights claims against them.

Erika Henry filed the lawsuit claiming that defendants Umair A. Shah, Jessica Todorovich, and Roy Calica terminated her employment with the Washington Department of Health in violation of her First Amendment rights. The case centers on allegations that Henry's termination was retaliatory punishment for engaging in constitutionally protected speech.

The three officials appealed the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington's denial of their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. District Judge Mary K. Dimke had presided over the lower court proceedings. The case was argued and submitted to the Ninth Circuit on Dec. 2, 2025, in Portland, Oregon.

Qualified immunity serves as a legal shield that protects government officials from civil damages lawsuits unless specific conditions are met. Under established precedent from *Ashcroft v. al-Kidd* (2011), plaintiffs must demonstrate two elements to overcome qualified immunity: first, that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and second, that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

The Ninth Circuit's three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judges M. Margaret McKeown and Sung, along with District Judge A. Joe Fish serving by designation, reviewed the district court's analysis under this framework. Plaintiffs bear the burden of satisfying both prongs of the qualified immunity test, as established in *Charfauros v. Board of Elections* (9th Cir. 2001).

However, because the defendants moved for summary judgment, the district court was required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs when determining whether qualified immunity applied. This standard of review often makes it more difficult for government officials to obtain dismissal of claims at the summary judgment stage.

The case involves multiple plaintiffs, including Daniel Henry as Erika Henry's husband, and their two minor children identified only as K.H. and B.H. The family's inclusion suggests potential claims for loss of consortium or other derivative damages stemming from the alleged constitutional violation.

The Washington Department of Health and unnamed John Does 1-10 are also named as defendants in the lawsuit, indicating the potential scope of institutional liability beyond the three individual officials who appealed the qualified immunity denial.

First Amendment retaliation claims in the employment context require plaintiffs to demonstrate that they engaged in constitutionally protected speech and that this speech was a substantial or motivating factor in adverse employment actions. Government employees retain certain speech rights, though these protections are more limited than those enjoyed by private citizens, particularly when speech relates to job duties or workplace matters.

The Ninth Circuit's decision to affirm the denial of qualified immunity suggests the appellate court found sufficient evidence that Henry's termination may have violated clearly established First Amendment principles. This determination allows the case to proceed to discovery and potentially trial, where a jury could ultimately decide whether the defendants violated Henry's constitutional rights.

The ruling is designated as a memorandum opinion marked "NOT FOR PUBLICATION," meaning it will not serve as binding precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Such designations are common for appeals that apply well-established legal principles to specific factual circumstances rather than creating new legal standards.

For the Henry family, the decision represents a victory in their pursuit of accountability for alleged constitutional violations. The denial of qualified immunity removes a significant procedural barrier that often ends federal civil rights lawsuits before they reach the merits.

The defendants now face the prospect of continued litigation, including potentially costly discovery proceedings and the possibility of a jury trial. Government officials who lose qualified immunity protections may be personally liable for damages if a jury ultimately finds they violated clearly established constitutional rights.

The case highlights ongoing tensions between government authority and employee speech rights within state health departments. As public health agencies continue to play prominent roles in policy implementation, questions about employee speech protections remain relevant for government workers nationwide.

The Washington Department of Health has not yet indicated whether it will seek further review of the decision. The defendants could potentially petition for rehearing en banc before the full Ninth Circuit or seek Supreme Court review, though such appeals face significant procedural hurdles and uncertain prospects for success.