Plaintiff brings this action under the Whistleblower Act, alleging that he was fired in retaliation for raising safety concerns in the university radiology department where he worked. However, in a separate administrative action, it was determined that plaintiff’s discharge was proper and not retaliatory. Consequently, plaintiff cannot make out the “causal connection” element of his claim under the Whistleblower Act.
We affirm the trial court’s grant of defendants’ motion to dismiss.
In the previous administrative action, plaintiff sought reimbursement for legal fees, which he claimed were related to his safety concerns. However, it turned out that plaintiff had incurred the legal fees for personal reasons, including his plans to sue the defendant-university for damages.
During the administrative action, the university undertook an internal investigation which revealed that plaintiff had engaged in a pattern of seeking and receiving reimbursement for vacations after he scheduled some work-related meetings with colleagues in his vacation locale. Despite plaintiff’s assertion that the internal investigation was used as a pretext for retaliation, the facts indicate that the audit was conducted due to the “unusual” nature of plaintiff’s request for reimbursement of legal fees and the ambiguity of his stated reasons for the reimbursement.
Only upon a review of plaintiff’s communications with outside counsel did the audit reveal that plaintiff was discussing the potential of “...
Patricia White, 70, of Old Greenwich, received a nine-month prison sentence for submitting false claims for unclaimed properties to around 30 state treasuries. HARRISBURG, Pa. — Months after her br...