Whistleblower Law in Pennsylvania

What Is The Whistleblower Law?

Background

“To advance that public interest, the General Assembly enacted the Whistleblower Law to provide public employees with protection against retaliation for reporting wrongdoing.” (See Perry v. Tioga County (1994) 168 Pa. Commw. 126, 133.)

“It is the sole and exclusive remedy by which such a claim can be brought against a governmental employer.” (See id.)

“There is no general public policy protecting whistleblowers in the private sector.” (See Krajsa v. Keypunch, Inc. (1993) 424 Pa. Super. 230, 622 A.2d 355; Perry v. Tioga County, 168 Pa. Commw (1994) 126, 133 n.8.)

“In Pennsylvania, the public policy exception to employment at-will recognizes a cause of action for wrongful discharge if the employee has been retaliated against for conduct actually required by law or refusing to participate in conduct actually prohibited by law; the employee's reasonable belief of illegality is not enough.” (See id.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“The Whistleblower Law creates a public policy of protecting government employees from retaliatory discharge as a result of reports of wrongdoing or waste.” (See Javitz v. Luzerne Cnty., 115 C.D. 2020, at *23 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. July 19, 2021).)

“The Whistleblower Law protects employees who come forth with good faith reports of wrongdoing by publicly[ ]funded employers; it does so by prohibiting retaliatory conduct from the employer, and by providing a civil remedy for employees when employers violate the law's provisions." (See id.)

“Section 3(a) of the Whistleblower Law provides, in pertinent part: no employer may discharge, threaten or otherwise discriminate or retaliate against an employee regarding the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, location or privileges of employment because the employee . . . makes a good faith report . . . to the employer or appropriate authority [of] an instance of wrongdoing or waste by a public body[.]” (See id.)

Prima Facie Case

“To establish a prima facie case for wrongful discharge under the Whistleblower Law, the plaintiff must show both a protected report of wrongdoing or waste and a causal connection between that report and the discharge.” (See Javitz v. Luzerne Cnty., 115 C.D. 2020, at *13 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. July 19, 2021).)

“Therefore, all of the following must be shown to establish a prima facie case:

a protected report of wrongdoing,
by a public body, and
causal connection between the report and her termination."

(See Javitz v. Luzerne Cnty., 115 C.D. 2020, at *13 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. July 19, 2021).)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“The scope of this Court's review of a grant or denial of summary judgment is limited to determining whether the trial court committed an error of law or an abuse of discretion.” (See Kaplan v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth. (1997) 688 A.2d 736, 738 n. 2; Quinones v. Commonwealth (2012) 45 A.3d 467, 469 n.1.)

“Summary judgment is appropriate only when, after examining the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (See Guy M. Cooper, Inc. v. E. Penn Sch. Dist. (2006) 903 A.2d 608, 613; Quinones v. Commonwealth (2012) 45 A.3d 467, 469 n.1.)

“The appellate standard of review is de novo when a reviewing court considers questions of law.” (See Weaver v. Lancaster Newspapers, Inc. (2007) 592 Pa. 458, 926 A.2d 899; Quinones v. Commonwealth (2012) 45 A.3d 467, 469 n.1.)

“In reviewing questions of law, the scope of review is plenary, as the reviewing court may examine the entire contents of the record.” (See id.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “an employee alleging a violation of this act must show by a preponderance of the evidence that, prior to the alleged reprisal, the employee . . . had reported . . . in good faith . . . an instance of wrongdoing or waste to the employer or an appropriate authority.” (See O'Rourke v. Com (2001) 566 Pa. 161, 170-71.)

It is also well settled that “it shall be a defense to an action under this section if the defendant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the action by the employer occurred for separate and legitimate reasons, which are not merely pretextual.” (See id.)

Documents for Whistleblower Law in Pennsylvania

Sort By

McCall v. School District of Haverford Township document preview

Amended Complaint

47 pages

SIMCOX LAW LLC BY: DANIEL W. SIMCOX, ESQ. ATTORNEY ID 1 76754 6 Garnier Way Glen Mills, PA 19342 Phone: dan@dansimcoxlaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff MARIAM CALL 6 Garnier Way Glen Mills, PA 19342 Plaintiff, SCHOOL DISTRICT OF HAVERFORD TOWNSHIP 50 East Eagle Road Havertown, Pennsylvania 19083 Defendant NOTICE TO DEFEND You hav