Evans v. Thomas Jefferson University, 81 A.3d 1062

Background

Evans, a LPN, worked at Thomas Jefferson University’s MATER clinic and refused to administer methadone to a patient she believed was intoxicated; a supervisor (non-nurse) told another nurse to medicate the patient. Evans reported that incident to her supervisor (Burke) and program director (Vandegrift).
Prior to the report, Evans had received comments and a 2009 competency evaluation noting complaints that her tone was "harsh"; her 2009 annual review was largely positive but flagged customer-service concerns.
After the March/April 2010 incident and her report, Evans received progressive discipline for multiple patient and coworker complaints (warnings, suspension, termination in November 2010 for "rude, intimidating, discourteous and unprofessional behavior").
Evans filed a Whistleblower Law claim alleging retaliatory discharge; Defendants moved for summary judgment and the trial court granted it after concluding Evans failed to respond properly to many numbered factual paragraphs and failed to show causation.
The Superior Court held that the trial court erred in deeming many paragraphs admitted (they were in the ARGUMENT section), but affirmed on the merits: Evans failed to establish causation and her report did not allege statutory/regulatory "wrongdoing." Summary judgment affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly deemed unanswered paragraphs of the SJ motion admitted	Evans argued the court should not treat paragraphs placed in the ARGUMENT section as admitted	Defendants argued Evans’ failure to answer numbered paragraphs admitted those facts, justifying SJ	Court: Trial court erred to the extent it deemed ARGUMENT-paragraphs automatically admitted, because facts must be unambiguously presented as such
Whether Evans established causation between her report and discharge under the Whistleblower Law	Evans relied on temporal proximity, downgraded review, and perceived hostility by Vandegrift after the report	Defendants relied on contemporaneous, documented complaints and disciplining reasons (rudeness to patients/staff) predating and independent of the report	Held: Evidence insufficient to show causal connection; temporal proximity and subjective feelings not enough to meet threshold
Whether Evans’ report alleged "wrongdoing" as defined by the Whistleblower Law	Evans contended methadone administration to an intoxicated patient and override by non-nurse implicated federal/regulatory violations	Defendants argued no statute/regulation or written code was violated: the persons who administered methadone were licensed nurses, and alleged safety policy was unwritten	Held: Report did not allege statutory/regulatory violation or written code breach; internal/unwritten policy does not suffice
Whether the Unemployment Board decision creates a genuine dispute on retaliatory motive	Evans argued the UCBR finding for benefits implies disputed facts about termination motive	Defendants argued UCBR addressed willful misconduct for benefits, not employer motive	Held: UCBR decision irrelevant to Whistleblower causation; it does not create a material dispute on motive

Key Cases Cited

O’Rourke II v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194 (Pa. 2001) (Whistleblower claim requires protected report and causal connection)
Golaschevsky v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 720 A.2d 757 (Pa. 1998) (temporal proximity and subjective hostility alone insufficient to prove causation under Whistleblower Law)
Gray v. Hafer, 651 A.2d 221 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (same principal: mere timing is inadequate to establish retaliation)
Sea v. Seif, 831 A.2d 1288 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (Whistleblower causation requires concrete facts or surrounding circumstances)
Surmacz v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 612 A.2d 566 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (report of violation of unwritten internal policy does not constitute protected "wrongdoing")