789 F. Supp. 2d 595
E.D. Pa.2011Background
- Johnson directed RHD's ACES program for eight years; program funded by City of Philadelphia DHS.
- DHS funding issues arose in fall 2008 threatening ACES funding; Fishman sought to meet with Johnson in December 2008 over ongoing problems.
- July 2004 rumor about a coworker (Daniels) having a relationship with a consumer prompted Johnson to raise concerns under RHD policy.
- Johnson alleged Daniels' conduct violated policy; Fishman disputed, and no external reports were made.
- February 2009 Johnson returned from FMLA leave after being approved due to health reasons; Johnson was terminated on February 23 or 25, 2009, with a letter deeming her a key employee and ineligible for reinstatement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblower wrongdoing must be shown | Johnson identified wrongdoing by a coworker | Wrongdoing not clearly defined; report inadequate | Granted in part; no protected wrongdoing shown |
| Causal connection between report and termination | Termination linked to July 2004 report | Too attenuated; five-year gap breaks causation | Granted in part; no sufficient causal nexus shown |
| Common law wrongful discharge | Public policy implicated via CPS/Whistleblower claims | No clear public policy mandate shown | Granted; no common law wrongful discharge claim |
| FMLA key employee exemption and restoration | Johnson was improperly denied restoration under FMLA | Johnson was a key employee; restoration denied for economic injury | Denied summary judgment on key employee defense; genuine dispute of material fact on entitlement to restoration |
Key Cases Cited
- Geary v. U.S. Steel Corp., 456 Pa. 171 (Pa. 1974) (at-will employment with limited exceptions for public policy)
- Gray v. Hafer, 168 Pa.Cmwlth. 613, 651 A.2d 221 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (definition of protected wrongdoing under Whistleblower Law)
- Golaschevsky v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 554 Pa. 157, 720 A.2d 757 (Pa. 1998) (causation required between report and retaliation; substantial gap insufficient)
- Callison v. City of Phila., 430 F.3d 117 (3d Cir. 2005) (FMLA interference focus on entitlements provision)
- Conoshenti v. Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 364 F.3d 135 (3d Cir. 2004) (burden shifting in retaliation claims under FMLA)