Colorado ag department seeks dismissal of whistleblower complaint over DEI as employee calls for HR director removal

By Jen Schumann | Rocky Mountain Voice

More than two months after a single chat comment during a virtual meeting sparked a whistleblower complaint at the Colorado Department of Agriculture, the case has escalated into a legal standoff, with the department moving to dismiss the complaint as the employee seeks the removal of its HR director.

At the center of the dispute is the employee’s contention that diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives are embedded in state governance and being promoted within a federally funded agency despite a federal executive order restricting DEI activities tied to federal programs.

“Complainant cannot establish a Whistleblower Act claim for several reasons,” the CDA response states. “First, Complainant failed to comply with the Act’s mandate to make a good-faith effort to disclose protected information to a supervisor, appointing authority, or member of the General Assembly before any external disclosure. Second, the actions identified—verbal directives during a meeting and initiation of an employment investigation—do not constitute ‘disciplinary action’ under the Act. Third, Complainant cannot establish a causal nexus between his alleged disclosure and CDA’s conduct because CDA acted for legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons consistent with statutory and policy obligations.”

The state’s response characterizes the Nov. 6 meeting—previously reported by RMV—as a brief disruption stemming from Rich Guggenheim’s “DEI on steroids” chat comment during an Inclusive Leadership update, framing the exchange as inappropriate workplace conduct rather than protected speech.

In an incident report, Plant Industry Division Director Wondirad Gebru, who was facilitating the Nov. 6 management meeting, wrote that Guggenheim “continued to be disruptive to the meeting and threatened me with a formal complaint,” adding that he responded by telling Guggenheim he had the right to file a complaint. Gebru noted that the exchange “disrupted the meeting for a short time,” but said he was able to continue, writing that “after this conversation we continued with the meeting and wrapped up at 11:00 a.m.”

Guggenheim disputes that characterization, saying the exchange consisted of a brief back-and-forth and that he does not recall making any verbal statements during the meeting about filing a formal complaint.

The fight over whether Guggenheim’s comment was protected speech or disruptive conduct is tied to a larger question he has raised since the case began. He argues the department’s DEI and Inclusive Leadership programming sits inside an agency that administers federally funded work, and he says federal policy has shifted in a way that puts grant compliance back on the table.

President Trump’s Executive Order 14151 directs federal agencies to terminate DEI and DEIA programs “under whatever name they appear,” and it specifically includes “equity-related grants or contracts” and DEI-related requirements affecting contractors and grantees. 

The order also directs agencies to identify programs that may have been “misleadingly relabeled” to preserve their prior function and to compile a list of federal grantees that received funding to “provide or advance” DEI or related activities.

Colorado state government continues to use “EDI” language across agencies and job postings. A current CDA job announcement states that “equity, diversity, and inclusion drive our success” and links applicants to the state’s EDI homepage.

An OIT statewide plan describes continuing Inclusive Leadership micro-learnings and broader efforts to “embed EDI” into agency culture and decision-making. Guggenheim argues that shift in federal enforcement, combined with Colorado’s continued EDI embedding, is why he believed he could not treat the issue as a private disagreement.

Elsewhere in Colorado state government, EDI frameworks explicitly tie compliance to workplace expectations, with at least one agency charter stating that interventions for failing to meet EDI standards may include disciplinary action.

While the EDI Committee Charter was reviewed by RMV in December and was unable to locate it on state or agency websites at the time of publication, its language and core concepts continue to appear in job postings and other official materials.

A review of recent CDA job postings shows a shift in how the department presents equity, diversity and inclusion language, though references to the state’s EDI framework remain. 

A job posting captured via PDF on Dec. 10 included a full EDI values statement and directed applicants to the state’s EDI homepage.

A similar posting active as of the publication of this story uses narrower equal-opportunity language, but still links to the same state EDI page.

From policy dispute to personnel action

The CDA maintains that the subsequent third-party investigation, conducted by the firm Employment Matters, is a standard response to complaints of disruptive behavior and is required for impartiality.

Guggenheim, who serves as the Plant Health Certification Program Manager and oversees federal USDA grant compliance, disputes the department’s characterization of events. In an amended filing with the State Personnel Board, he is seeking an investigation and removal of CDA Human Resources Director Ruth DeCrescentis, citing what he describes as incompetence, retaliation and a broader pattern of mismanagement.

Guggenheim’s amendment also centers on a separate Jan. 7 incident that he says illustrates disparate enforcement of workplace standards. 

According to his filing, a subordinate responded to his announcement that he had been invited to the White House by making a vulgar political remark during a staff meeting, which Guggenheim later documented in a written complaint to management. 

In that email, Guggenheim wrote that the remark targeted his implied political affiliation and created “an immediate atmosphere of hostility and intimidation,” adding that the subordinate referred to President Trump as “a piece of sh*t.” Guggenheim says that when he attempted to issue a formal reprimand, Human Resources blocked the action and imposed restrictions solely on him, a decision he argues contrasts with how his own conduct was later handled.

Screenshot from Guggenheim’s January 7 email to management describing the remark he alleges was made during a staff meeting. Names and identifying information have been redacted.

After the department opened an investigation into Guggenheim’s conduct during the Nov. 6 meeting, a third-party investigator hired by the Colorado Department of Agriculture interviewed him on Jan. 22 — the same day the state filed a response seeking dismissal of his whistleblower complaint, according to Guggenheim.

Guggenheim described the interview as “a complete sham” and “a fishing expedition,” saying the issue was not what happened during the meeting, but what he viewed as a lack of basic procedural clarity from the start.

According to Guggenheim, both he and his attorney repeatedly asked the investigator to identify the specific allegations under review and define the scope of the investigation before substantive questioning began.

“I don’t think there is any part of it that went well,” Guggenheim said in a follow-up interview. “They weren’t able to define the allegations or the scope of the investigation. When you can’t answer what you’re investigating, what happened, or when it happened, and you’re told it will ‘become clear as we progress,’ that’s a fishing expedition.”

Guggenheim said those requests for clarity were made multiple times and centered on whether the inquiry concerned insubordination, disruptive conduct or retaliation-related claims, and whether separate incidents were being combined into a single investigation. He said that during the exchange, a second investigator told him and his counsel that they “do not get to dictate what the scope of issues are for investigation,” while the lead investigator declined to begin with a defined list of allegations, explaining that providing “a bullet point list of allegations” was “not how I conduct interviews.”

Guggenheim said the inability to establish the allegations at the outset mattered because it prevented him from responding meaningfully and blurred the line between his role as a complainant and as a subject of investigation. “You can’t defend yourself against something that hasn’t been defined,” he said. “From my perspective, that’s not fact-finding. That’s speculation.”

The department has argued that the investigation was a standard and legally required response to complaints about workplace conduct and does not constitute retaliation, a characterization Guggenheim disputes.

Guggenheim has tied his concerns to potential conflicts between state equity initiatives and federal policy under President Trump’s Executive Order 14151, which prohibits certain DEI-related activities in federal agencies and grant programs. He says his Nov. 6 comment and subsequent disclosures were protected whistleblowing about possible misuse of federal funds.

The dispute has also drawn national commentary, including a Feb. 3 Blaze Media opinion column focused on Guggenheim’s allegations.

As of early February, the third-party investigation remains ongoing, and Guggenheim has indicated he is preparing a rebuttal to the CDA’s Jan. 22 response. 

The whistleblower complaint remains pending before the State Personnel Board, with related claims referred to the Colorado Civil Rights Division and federal channels. How the board handles the dispute could shape how whistleblower protections are applied when questions of DEI, federal funding and workplace conduct overlap.