
    Rebecca LOOMIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of WASHINGTON, Department of Licensing, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 11-35840.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Aug. 29, 2012.
    Filed Sept. 26, 2012.
    Frederick Henry Gautschi, III, Connell, Cordova, Hunter & Gautschi PLLC, Seattle, WA, Larry J. King, King Law Group LLC, Olympia, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Marie Clarke, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher Lanese, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General Office, Olympia, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: SCHROEDER and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rebecca Loomis appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the State of Washington, Department of Licensing (“DOL”), on Loomis’s claim of wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Loomis alleges that she was terminated for opposing a contract extension as a violation of section 43.19.1906 of the Revised Code of Washington and for expressing her concerns about a DOL employee accessing driver information in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2721.

To prevail on her claim, Loomis has to show that discouraging her conduct would jeopardize a clear public policy. Cudney v. ALSCO, Inc., 172 Wash.2d 524, 259 P.3d 244, 246 (2011). Loomis’s objections to the contract extension were not based on the competitive bidding policy and she eventually accepted the three-year extension. Loomis therefore cannot prove the jeopardy element because she accepted the actions that she now alleges were illegal. See Farnam v. CRISTA Ministries, 116 Wash.2d 659, 807 P.2d 830, 835 (1991). Moreover, Loomis also failed to prove that DOL’s actions violated the letter or purpose of the law. Dicomes v. State, 113 Wash.2d 612, 782 P.2d 1002, 1006 (1989). The contract at issue was a “personal services” contract that did not require competitive bidding. Wash. Rev.Code § 39.29 (2010).

Her claim related to 18 U.S.C. § 2721 also fails because DOL acted within the law. Bott v. Rockwell Int'l, 80 Wash.App. 326, 908 P.2d 909, 914 (1996). The district court correctly concluded that DOL employees had accessed the information for a “permissible use” under 18 U.S.C. § 2721(b).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     