A former rental housing specialist with Thurston County Public Health and Social Services is suing the department over allegations of wrongful termination in retaliation for whistleblower activities after she claimed she discovered suspected fraud by a rental assistance provider.
Talauna Reed, 50, of Olympia, is seeking $1.2 million in damages from the county, including $450,000 for emotional distress and $750,000 in lost wages, in the Thurston County Superior Court civil administrative law case in which she is representing herself. She worked for the county department’s Office of Housing and Homeless Prevention (OHHP) from March 18, 2024, until July 8, 2024, managing contracts for the county’s Eviction Prevention Rent Assistance (EPRA) program.
Partners in Prevention Education (PiPE), the organization Reed suspected committed fraud and misuse of public funds, is a local organization that had a contract with the OHHP to administer rental assistance for the county’s EPRA program. PiPE, a nonprofit organization founded in 2007, upended its normal operations when the COVID-19 pandemic began to assist the county in administering EPRA funds to clients facing housing insecurity.
Among the alleged fraudulent activities Reed suspected by PiPE was the organization receiving reimbursements for timesheets of employees who did not work for the EPRA program, receiving reimbursements for services not provided, billing the county for ineligible expenses, issuing rental assistance payments for ineligible clients, employees fraudulently receiving rental assistance payments, and supervisors authorizing reimbursements for unallowable expenses.
The county denies all of the allegations made by Reed, claiming she is not a whistleblower because the county was already deeply involved in an investigation on PiPE’s financial struggles and that anything Reed may have found were not revelatory to them. Additionally, public health officials say they did not know about Reed’s reports about PiPE until after her termination, meaning her firing could not have been retaliatory. County Manager Leonard Hernandez later said that county staff found no evidence of intentional malfeasance by PiPE and that the state auditor found no deficiencies of material weakness.
In Reed’s termination letter, Public Health and Social Services Director Jennifer Freiheit stated that her primary concerns that led to Reed’s firing were “inappropriate interaction with subrecipients and partners” and “unprofessional behavior toward supervisors.” Reed said that Freiheit’s claims were “libelous” and “an attempt to cover up for my wrongful termination.”
Reed was serving a six-month probationary period at the time of her termination. The probationary period is standard for county employees and allows new hires to learn the duties of their job, for the employer to observe performance and behavior, and to assess whether or not the employee can be successful.
Reed claimed that her supervisors were “impressed with her work,” according to her petition for review, and that she had never been written up or disciplined in any way until her termination.
Reed wrote in her declaration that Thurston County Public Health and Social Services had actual knowledge that someone had “blown the whistle” regarding the alleged suspected fraud, misuse of public funds and mismanagement of a government contract. She said the department also was aware that Reed had suspected fraud and that she wished to report it to the appropriate authority, according to court documents. Very few people could have sounded the alarm on the matter, Reed stated, as only she and her OHHP co-workers, which was fewer than 10 people, had access to client files from PiPE.
The county has also made a wave of allegations against Reed, claiming that she committed a conflict of interest by simultaneously holding a job with the Tenants Union of Washington state, a position she told her supervisors she would resign from during interviews. Public health officials also claim that Reed, after her termination, secretly forwarded confidential documents to her personal email and her Tenants Union email, and solicited an OHHP co-worker to send her confidential documents.
Reed’s findings and allegations
Reed alleges that her OHHP supervisors, Senior Program Manager Thomas Webster and Program Manager Keylee Marineau, directed her on her first day of work to “fix” PiPE because, according to them, it was a “mess” and they had conducted a monitoring in February 2024 that had several “findings.” One such result was that PiPE was not meeting the requirements of the Washington state Department of Commerce’s Consolidated Home Grant (CHG) guidelines. PiPE was awarded approximately $1.5 million in CHG grant funds in March 2023 for rental assistance to single adults in Thurston County.
Reed reviewed past invoices submitted by PiPE for reimbursement and reportedly discovered that PiPE was invoicing for ineligible expenses that Webster and/or Marineau approved for payment. The invoices with ineligible expenses were reportedly paid to PiPE, a report by Reed that she said resulted in no action taken by her supervisors.
Reed said she made “numerous” reports of suspected misuse of public funds to her supervisors and claims that they both acknowledged that PiPE had misused a $200,000 advance that was authorized by Marineau and Webster and that it was illegal. The advance was reportedly given to PiPE at the beginning of their EPRA contract in 2023, and Reed alleges there was no formal contract for the advance.
Reed was directed on March 21, 2024, to contact PiPE to find out when it was going to begin repaying the first $200,000 advance, she said. Olivia Violet, PiPE’s deputy director at the time, reportedly told her that PiPE did not spend the advance on EPRA-related expenses and that PiPE no longer had the $200,000 in its bank account and was unable to repay it.
Reed later discovered, under Marineau’s direction, through monitoring of PiPE’s services that PiPE had closed its doors to clients seeking rental assistance. Linsay Hill, PiPE’s program manager at the time, reportedly told Reed in late March 2024 that PiPE was not taking new clients and had not for “quite some time,” Reed reported in court documents, adding that the stoppage of providing services was a violation of its contract. She said she reported this information to her supervisors “immediately,” yet she again claims no action was taken.
Outside of the $200,000 advance of public funds PiPE received in March 2023 that Reed said had not been repaid, Reed found evidence of another $200,000 advance given to PiPE four months later.
PiPE reportedly submitted invoices for ineligible rent payments between March 2023 and April 2024 and for case management services that were not being provided due to it “shutting down” its rental assistance program and not adhering to its contract, according to Reed in court documents. She said PiPE also sought reimbursement for other items such as cellphone bills, salaries and employee benefits for individuals who were not directly working on the EPRA for the hours submitted.
Reed claims to have provided evidence to both of her supervisors that showed that Hill made check requests for rent payments that went to an employee, who she said was a landlord at the time of the payments, and later invoiced the county for payments over $200,000. She performed a client file review and determined it was “evident” the clients were ineligible for the program, according to court documents. However, the county responded that the PiPE staff member, who had indeed worked previously as a landlord and had received EPRA funds from PiPE, had left their position as a landlord a month prior to starting with PiPE.
Reed said both Marineau and Webster informed her and other county staff part of the homeless response team that they did not want the concerns about PiPE’s alleged misuse of public funds to get out to the public or to the Board of County Commissioners as the OHHP previously had to repay the treasury over $600,000 due to fraud, according to court documents.
Despite Reed providing her proof to her supervisors, PiPE’s contract for the EPRA program was renewed starting in July 2024. PiPE and the public health department mutually agreed to terminate the contract this past April.
Reed reports findings to fiscal department
After asking her supervisors “numerous times” to provide her with the policies and procedures for reporting suspicions of fraud and whistleblowing, Reed claims she was never given that information. Although Reed said she signed a letter from human resources listing county policies and required training upon her hiring, she said she was not provided with a copy of the county’s whistleblower policy and “(did) not know of one that existed.”
As a result, Reed reported her suspicions of fraud and misuse of public funds by PiPE to Tina Pablo-Long, the fiscal manager for the public health department, on June 21, 2024, scheduling the meeting four days earlier without contacting her supervisors. Reed said in her email to Pablo-Long that her concerns were becoming “increasingly emotionally burdensome” and that every time she reported her concerns to Marineau, “she made me feel like I was the problem.” Reed also informed Pablo-Long that she feared being terminated for reporting her suspicions of fraud and misuse of public funds to anyone.
Pablo-Long eventually contacted the state auditor’s office to ask for an investigation. Reed said Marineau uttered the phrase “we are f—-d” near co-workers when she learned of the pending investigation from Freiheit and abruptly announced she couldn’t stay in the office and had to work from home the rest of the day. Marineau also reportedly told Reed and other co-workers that she and Freiheit needed to come up with “an alternative plan” to stop the auditor’s investigation, which Reed detailed was apparently successful, as Pablo-Long later informed her that the auditor was no longer going to investigate the matter.
But why would the county sweat about a potential investigation from the state auditor’s office into PiPE? Reed believes her supervisor “altered and edited” a report that she completed, so much that it “diminished” the accounting of the misuse of public funds and to “cover up (Marineau’s) misdeeds,” as she wrote in court documents.
“I immediately discovered that the findings were substantiated and that there were even more significant concerns, specifically fraud,” Reed wrote in her tort claim, dated Aug. 5, 2024. “After meeting with PiPE and reporting the suspected fraud that was being overlooked to my immediate supervisor and our department manager, I was silenced and ostracized, told not to communicate with anyone outside of the department.”
Reed said that after she disclosed her suspicions to her supervisors, they began treating her differently, accusing her of unprofessionalism and “subjecting me to heightened scrutiny,” she said in court documents. She claimed that Marineau’s reaction to her disclosures and her knowledge of the investigation into PiPE establishes a causal connection between Reed’s whistleblowing activities and the “retaliatory” behavior she experienced, as Reed stated that Marineau “forbade” her from communicating about the suspected fraud to anyone.
Reed said there was no oral or written warning regarding any alleged misconduct or unprofessional behavior and that she was “suddenly terminated without a reasonable explanation or opportunity for improvement.”
Reed admitted that, after her termination, she attempted to send invoices that had evidence of the suspected fraud and misuse of funds to another co-worker and her personal email but that they failed to send. She denied forwarding emails containing personal information about clients.
The county’s argument
The public health department’s attorney, Jeffrey James of Sebris Busto James, stated that “no part of (Reed’s) contention is factual,” citing that the county had already been closely “scrutinizing and remediating” PiPE’s financial struggles. Therefore, he determined that Reed was not blowing the whistle but was simply echoing it, which is not protected under any law, and that Reed’s termination was unrelated to any reports she had made. Additionally, James — along with Freiheit, Webster and Marineau in their declarations filed to the court — all stated that they had no knowledge that Reed made any reports of suspected fraud until after her termination. Administrative Law Judge Laura Bradley backed up this claim in the court’s final order on summary judgment motion issued on Feb. 19.
The county, which issued 21 pages of discrete areas of concern about PiPE, determined that PiPE was struggling to keep up with the document management required for its “unprecedented” amount of funding and clients, James said in court documents.
The county accused Reed of committing conflict of interest by simultaneously working for the Tenants Union of Washington state. Each county party disclosed to the court that they had advised Reed that she could not keep her position with the Tenants Union if she accepted their offer, as it would have violated county policy as a conflict of interest. This is due to the county’s EPRA program assisting Washington’s landlords, while the Tenants Union sat on the “proverbial other side of the table,” as James described. Reed assured her eventual supervisors that she would resign from her Tenants Union job after one final pre-scheduled presentation, Marineau said. But the county claims that Reed deceived them as she never resigned as she had promised.
The county also insists that Reed’s supervisors gave her a hardcopy booklet of the county’s employee handbook, which enshrines the county’s whistleblowing policies “in granular detail,” according to James.
Chapter 14 of an online version of the county’s Personnel Rules and Policies handbook, revised March 18, 2025, states that it is the policy of Thurston County to encourage reporting by county employees of improper governmental action taken by Thurston County officers and employees and protect county employees who have reported improper governmental actions in accordance with Thurston County policies and procedures.
The chapter includes a section defining improper governmental action, procedures for reporting, and protection against retaliatory actions. In section 4A, it reads, “Thurston County officials and employees are prohibited from taking retaliatory action against a Thurston County employee because he or she has in good faith reported an improper governmental action.”
Reed and others at OHHP reportedly met with PiPE’s staff on April 30, 2024, to discuss the county’s $200,000 advance to PiPE. While the county’s lawyer admitted that PiPE had indeed burned through much of the advance at the start of the contract, spending had slowed down later on. The county maintains that it had been addressing that spending prior to Reed’s hiring. In fact, OHHP had developed a schedule for PiPE to account for the advance by the end of the contract. During that meeting, county officials detail how none of those details were properly discussed as intended, as Reed “hijacked” the meeting to “belittle” a PiPE staff member, scolding them for a range of grievances and demanding the whereabouts of the $200,000 advance, according to court documents. Reed allegedly provided false information about the EPRA program and falsely suggested that PiPE was intentionally mishandling funds.
Public health officials all detailed multiple occasions during virtual EPRA meetings where Reed displayed what they called unprofessional behavior, allegedly rolling her eyes, shaking her head, crossing her arms and sighing “theatrically” every time Marineau or a PiPE staff member spoke. Marineau and Webster met with Reed to discuss her performance issues, and Reed initially showed contrition and acknowledged intent to improve her conduct, James said, but shortly after the meeting, Reed sent an email to Marineau claiming that her alleged correction of Reed’s manner of speech during the virtual meeting was “racist” and “very dehumanizing.”
The county claimed that Reed nor Pablo-Long never shared the contents of their June meeting to discuss Reed’s findings of suspected fraud by PiPE, or that a meeting ever took place.
The last straw for the county was on July 2, 2024, when OHHP held a public meeting to discuss EPRA programs, and officials said Reed “publicly excoriated” PiPE and her supervisors in front of other nonprofit partners and the public. She also allegedly continued her inappropriate body language, including rolling her eyes and sighing each time her supervisors spoke. This time, however, Webster and Marineau messaged Reed during the meeting to stop her behavior, only for Reed to “abruptly leave the meeting.” The following day, Marineau and Webster approached Freiheit to suggest that the county terminate Reed’s probationary employment, and Reed was terminated on July 8, 2024.
On July 19, 2024, public health officials reportedly accessed Reed’s work email for the first time and discovered Reed’s meeting with Pablo-Long the previous month, along with how she returned to her desk after her termination to forward confidential county documents to her personal email and her extant Tenants Union work account. Public health also alleges that Reed solicited an OHHP employee multiple times to breach county policy and forward confidential and proprietary documents to Reed’s personal email.
Reed filed a petition for review on April 11 after the final order on summary judgment motion that supported the county’s claim that it had no knowledge of Reed’s whistleblowing activities when it terminated her. Reed wrote that the OAH improperly made findings of fact in its order for summary judgment. However, she claimed that the administrative law judge found that she was indeed a whistleblower as a matter of law, according to the OAH order for summary judgment cited in Reed’s petition for review.
Reed also filed a petition for reconsideration of the final order on summary judgment motion, which was denied. Bradley, who signed the order April 16, maintained that Reed’s petition for reconsideration did not offer new or material evidence not previously considered, weighed and addressed in the final order on summary judgment motion.
PiPE apologizes for harm caused to community
PiPE released a statement on its public Facebook page on July 21 addressing what it called “recent concerns and harm caused by (PiPE) that have undoubtedly impacted all of us.”
“There has been a lack of consistent management, facilitators and structure that has led to our inability to serve our participants with the compassionate and reliable care they deserve,” PiPE wrote. “We want to apologize to those in the community and on our team who have felt retraumatized by our past actions. PiPE will continue to take actions that are aligned with our mission and to do whatever it takes to rebuild trust.”
PiPE added that it is in the process of “transforming our organization” to support its community.
Reed takes her case to the county commission
Reed brought the matter to the Thurston County Board of Commissioners during a July 29 business meeting in the public comment period. She claimed that by its inaction in not investigating PiPE’s alleged fraud, the county was not following its mission “to create a community that promotes health, commerce and environmental protection with transparency and accountability.”
“I conducted a client file review of just 10 random files. Nine of those files were given to me by the provider. The files were either fabricated or altered with my supervisors’ assistance, and none of the clients were real or eligible to receive funding or receive rental assistance,” Reed told the commissioners. “All required documentation was missing. In addition, there was evidence collected that an employee received tens of thousands of dollars in rental assistance payments. That provider was also given two $200,000 advances for service.”
Reed claimed that at the time of her termination, PiPE had only partially repaid one of the two advances, noting that it is “unacceptable to allow providers to take advantage of the system, even worse to let individuals who are employed by the county overlook that.” She told the commissioners that she was terminated under “false pretenses” and that her name was “smeared” by Freiheit, Marineau and Webster.
As for the claim that Reed committed a conflict of interest by working with the Tenants Union of Washington state simultaneously with her county job, she said the job did not bring any conflict of interest and that it was disclosed with the county. Reed also denied stealing confidential information after her termination, stating that this allegation could be “easily proven false by IT.”
Reed returned to the commissioners during their Aug. 5 meeting and demanded that the board vote to authorize an independent investigation into the suspected fraud and her alleged wrongful termination, among other issues. Although every involved county supervisor wrote in their declarations to the court that Reed was not a whistleblower, Reed told the commissioners that the administrative law judge found that she was.
Two weeks later, Hernandez provided an update to the commissioners on Reed’s claims through a statement during the board’s Aug. 19 agenda-setting meeting. Without explicitly saying so, Hernandez implied that Reed is not a whistleblower by stating the public health department and OHHP have been monitoring PiPE since October 2023, five months before Reed was hired.
In February 2024, the fiscal manager of public health issued a fiscal monitoring report, which included corrective action items for PiPE, according to Hernandez. PiPE made a “final payment” in August 2024 to restore funding that was identified by the plan, he added. The state auditor’s office two months later issued its 2023 fiscal report which did not identify any "deficiencies of material weakness,” as the county manager described it, through a review of PiPE’s EPRA invoices.
“Our staff found no evidence of intentional malfeasance but identified concerns about PiPE’s management practices, including lack of internal controls and incomplete documentation of records, which is not unusual when we’re working with nonprofits,” Hernandez said.
Reed responded to Hernandez’s statement in the board’s business meeting on Aug. 19, expressing her frustration with the county manager and other county officials for what she claimed was their attempt to “deflect from the court issues I presented to this commission.”
“The true victims are the single adults who were evicted due to their inability to access rental assistance through the only single adult provider in the county, as well as employees who feel helpless to report anything because nothing will be done or the consequences they’ll face,” Reed said.
The final hearing for the case is scheduled for Jan. 23, 2026.
