Exam 39: Employment at Will

Correct Answer:

Verified

In McQueary v. The Pennsylvania State University, Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, No. 2012-1804 (2016), The court ruled in favor of McQueary and awarded him $5 million in damages plus $1.7 million in legal fees under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Act. The court held that McQueary's good faith reporting of the sexual abuse to his supervisors qualified under the statute as a protected act of whistleblowing. Under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Act, the burden shifted from McQueary to Penn State to prove that the termination was for "separate and legitimate reasons" from any whistleblowing activity. The court rejected Penn State's contention that McQueary's termination was unrelated to his grand jury testimony and was the result of routine personnel changes of an incoming head coach. The court pointed to evidence that the new head coach had never interviewed McQueary and had never looked at his personnel file and that the decision to fire McQueary was contemporaneous with the administrators finding out about his grand jury testimony."Penn State's asserted defenses must be analyzed in the context of its conduct both pre- and post-Grand Jury presentment as this is a case where actions speak louder than words. . . . But for the Grand Jury presentment, no Penn State coach would have lost their job and [the new head coach] would not have been hired. Accordingly, [the new head coach's] decision not to interview or hire Mr. McQueary does not constitute a separate and legitimate reason for his firing."