Lawson v. Bowie State University
26 A.3d 866
| Md. | 2011Background
- Lawson, a 17-year BSU Police Department veteran, was terminated for violating the chain-of-command policy after drafting a letter about alleged officer misconduct.
- Lawson delivered the letter to Dr. Travis, BSU’s Vice President of Student Affairs, rather than to the BSU Police Chief, prompting notification to the Chief and Lawson’s suspension.
- Travis assigned an investigator; the internal review ultimately found no illegal conduct in the arrest at issue.
- Lawson sought whistleblower relief under Maryland’s State Personnel and Pensions Article, §5-301 et seq., alleging the letter was a protected disclosure under §5-305.
- An ALJ ruled the letter was not a protected disclosure, reasoning Lawson’s motive was to push department changes, not to alert a higher authority.
- The Circuit Court affirmed the ALJ; this Court granted certiorari to determine whether Lawson made a protected disclosure under §5-305.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lawson made a protected disclosure under §5-305. | Lawson insists the disclosure evidenced a violation and was to a higher authority. | BSU contends Lawson lacked reasonable belief the disclosure showed a violation and was motivated by a crusade to reform. | ALJ erred; proper objective standard applied, not motive-based. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heller v. Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources, 391 Md. 148 (2006) (established objective reasonable-belief standard for whistleblowing)
- Montgomery v. Eastern Correctional Institute, 377 Md. 615 (2003) (adopts objective test for reasonable belief in whistleblower claims)
- Horton v. Department of the Navy, 66 F.3d 279 (1995) (held motive cannot bar protected disclosure; legislative history informed standard)
- Drake v. Agency for International Development, 543 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (emphasized you need not prove actual violation, only reasonable belief of potential violation)
- Huffman v. Office of Personnel Management, 263 F.3d 1341 (2001) (disclosures may be protected even with uncertain substantiation; focus on reasonable belief)