Category: Whistleblower Retaliation

Whistleblower Protection Laws: Encouraging Reporting and Preventing Retaliation

By ,

Our Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Can Protect Your Business

Whistleblowing is a term that refers to an employee’s act of reporting unethical or illegal activities within their organization. This is a crucial process that can help maintain the integrity of a company.

For small business owners in Philadelphia, understanding and adhering to whistleblower protection laws is a legal obligation. It is essential to foster a work environment where employees feel safe to voice their concerns without fear of retaliation.

The Toll of Whistleblowing and Creating a Safe Environment

The decision to report internal misconduct is not one that employees take lightly. They often face significant emotional and psychological stress due to the fear of isolation, retaliation, or even termination. Studies have shown that whistleblowers may experience anxiety, depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). These mental health implications underscore the need for businesses to cultivate a supportive culture that encourages reporting of wrongdoing.

Creating a safe environment for raising concerns begins with establishing a clear policy on whistleblowing. This policy should include procedures for reporting misconduct, assurances of confidentiality, and explicit protections against retaliation. Regular training sessions can also help educate employees about their rights and responsibilities under the law.

In addition, employers should promote open communication and transparency within the workplace. Employees should feel confident that their concerns will be taken seriously and addressed promptly, without negative consequences.

Examples of Whistleblowing and Retaliation

To better understand the importance of these protections, let us consider some real-world examples:

  • Enron: Perhaps the most infamous case of whistleblowing, an executive at Enron revealed accounting irregularities that led to the company’s downfall. Despite her courage, she faced severe retaliation, including professional isolation and threats.
  • Wells Fargo: Employees who attempted to report the creation of fraudulent accounts were fired or otherwise penalized. Only when the scandal became public did the true extent of the misconduct and retaliation come to light.

These examples underscore the critical need for effective whistleblower protection laws and policies. By fostering a culture of openness and respect, businesses can encourage ethical behavior, protect their employees, and maintain their reputation in the marketplace.

Our Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Can Protect Your Business

Small business owners in Philadelphia need to understand and comply with whistleblower protection laws. At Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C., we are committed to helping businesses like yours navigate the complexities of employment law. We are a premier firm with decades of experience. To schedule a consultation with one of our Philadelphia business lawyers, complete our online form or call us at 215-574-0600. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Should I Continue to Work at My Job After Whistleblowing?

By ,

The Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Assist and Protect Whistleblowers.

A whistleblower is someone who works within a private sector or government organization and reveals abuses of power and other bad behaviors done by their employer that betray the public’s trust. The information they share can be revealed internally or disclosed to Congress, other government channels, law enforcement, and/or the public. But since whistleblowers run the risk of facing repercussions from their employers, should they continue working after speaking out?

The Aftermath of Whistleblowing

Being a whistleblower can be stressful, even when the person has good intentions. It is often portrayed as a heroic action, if you consider the individuals who pulled back the curtain on Enron, released the Pentagon Papers, or shed light on the tobacco industry. The public might view them as heroes, but the truth is that a whistleblower’s career can change forever.

Even though the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 was passed, approximately 30 percent of government workers claim they worry about retaliation for reporting wrongdoing. Since the government can have more oversight, it makes sense that private-sector whistleblowers worry even more in this respect. It has been reported that as much as 44 percent of these employees have experienced instances of retaliation.

What is the Whistleblowing Process Like?

You do not have to be working at the company that is the focus of the whistleblowing action, but if were taking part in the alleged illegal behavior you can consult a whistleblower attorney about how to handle it. All of the information will be kept confidential, and your identity will stay anonymous unless you decide to grant permission to provide your name.

Here are some of the programs in the U.S. that whistleblowers can pursue cases through:

  • The False Claims Act (FCA)
  • SEC Whistleblower Program
  • IRS Whistleblower Program
  • Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)

Claims can be filed under more than one of these, and there are statutes of limitations that apply. You must work with an attorney to file a case under the FCA, and using one for the SEC and CFTC will let you file anonymously. In any case, having an experienced lawyer may help facilitate your claim and increase the chances of success.

A successful case that leads to the recovery of fraudulently gained funds is a good thing, as the whistleblower can receive a percentage of the amount of money recovered as a reward. This can range from 10 to 30 percent, but every case is different.

Can I Keep Working After Whistleblowing?

If you work with an attorney, your identity will remain confidential throughout most of the process unless you grant permission to share your name. Federal law protects you from being retaliated against at work after reporting illegal company actions to the government. This means that you cannot be subjected to adverse employment decisions like demotions or firings based on what you did to expose the illegal conduct. If the employer does retaliate, you could be entitled to additional damages in a subsequent employment lawsuit.

There are also state laws that protect public employees from that kind of retaliation, but these might not apply to your situation. The amount of protection will receive depends on if the company is private, public, or a government entity, who your report the wrongdoing to, they kind of wrongdoing, and the applicable laws. The option of returning to work may be viable or then again, it may not.

If you are thinking about whistleblowing, you are taking on the risk of being suspended, demoted, transferred, fired, or facing other kinds of retaliation. That is why it is important to consult with an experienced employment lawyer before filing the claim – this way, an experienced professional who has your best interests in mind can guide you through the process.

The Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Assist and Protect Whistleblowers

It takes courage to become a whistleblower, and trusted legal guidance to help you make your claim. For a confidential consultation, contact the skilled Philadelphia employment lawyers from Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Reach out by calling 215-574-0600 or completing our online form. From our office in Philadelphia, we proudly serve clients throughout South Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Am I Protected From Retaliation by My Employer?

By ,

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Advocate for Employees Who Have Experienced Workplace Retaliation.

Every employee has the right to a workplace that is free from retaliation. Retaliation occurs when an employer acts negatively against an employee who has engaged in a legally-protected activity, including the following (not an exhaustive list):

  • Filing a discrimination claim, whether related to sexual, racial, religious or other discrimination.
  • Submitting an internal complaint of discrimination, including an informal and/or verbal complaint.
  • Questioning whether certain decisions or conduct of the employer are unlawful.
  • Discussing the employer’s practices with other employees.
  • Supporting a colleague’s discrimination or retaliation claim or internal complaint.
  • Requesting medical or maternity leave or a disability accommodation
  • Acting as a whistleblower.

What Is Employer Retaliation?

An employer actions can be considered retaliatory if they are motivated by the employee’s legally-protected actions. Examples of unlawful employer retaliation include:

  • Suspending, terminating, or demoting the employee.
  • Reducing an employee’s salary or benefits/eliminating benefits.
  • Refusing to promote the employee.
  • Issuing a negative performance review that is not accurate.
  • Disciplinary actions, such as probation or warnings.
  • Transferring the employee to a different department or area.
  • Harassing the employee.
  • Creating an uncomfortable work environment.
  • Starting rumors or gossip about the employee.
  • Writing up the employee for insubordination or other claims.

Protection Against Workplace Retaliation

Many different laws, federal and state, protect employees against retaliation. Workers who experience retaliation will go through their state’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for claims pursuant to the following.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Protects employees from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, and religion.

Fair Labor Standards Act

Makes it unlawful to discharge or discriminate against any employee because of filing a complaint or being willing to testify on a complaint.

Occupational Safety and Health Act

Protects employees who make workplace safety and health complaints.

Americans with Disabilities Act

Protects workers with disabilities in the workplace against discrimination or retaliation.

National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)

Gives rights to workers organizing, trying to form, join, or assist labor organizations to bargain as a group, and to engage in activities together with other workers. The anti-retaliation protection of the NLRA gives employees broad protection regardless of whether there is a union in the workplace.

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)

Protects workers against age discrimination in the workplace.

On a state level, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (PHRC) handles retaliation claims pursuant to:

  • Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (PHRA): The PHRA is a law that covers employment discrimination against workers by their employers for certain illegal reasons. The state enacted the law because workers who are not given equal employment opportunities may not reach their fullest potentials or enjoy the standards of living that they should. When people who have protected statuses suffer employment discrimination and are not given equal opportunities, they may then be forced to access public welfare.

Local laws can even protect workers. For example, Philadelphia’s Fair Practices Ordinance (PFPO) protects employees from discrimination and harassment based on their sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

What Can I Gain From a Retaliation Legal Claim?

An employee who has experienced employer retaliation should contact an employment lawyer. They may be entitled to recover compensation for their losses, including:

  • Lost wages and benefits due to being out of work (both past and future).
  • Curtailed career advancement opportunities.
  • Emotional trauma, humiliation, embarrassment, pain and suffering.
  • Reinstatement of lost position or benefits.
  • Attorneys’ fees and costs.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Advocate for Employees Who Have Experienced Workplace Retaliation

Retaliation against employees for whistleblowing or other reasons is illegal. If you feel your rights have been violated, contact our Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. We help employees get fair and just compensation under the law. For an initial consultation, contact us online or call us at 215-574-0600. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

 

 

 

How can I Avoid Legal Issues When Firing Employees?

By ,

Philadelphia Business Lawyers

An employer cannot terminate a worker for unjust reasons. That type of termination is unlawful, and some examples of wrongful termination include:

  • Whistleblowing.
  • Complaints about violations of employee rights.
  • Testifying against the company or another employee in legal suits.
  • Participating in lawful union activities.
  • Filing claims for Workers’ Compensation or charges of unfair labor practices.
  • Wage garnishments in order to pay debts.

Employers cannot fire an employee in a manner that violates federal or state laws. As an employer, understanding both state and federal laws regarding employee termination will help you avoid a wrongful termination suit. Anyone in your company who is in a position to make termination decisions should have an idea of state and federal laws so they can avoid firing someone in an unjust manner.

For example you cannot fire an employee through retaliation, and you cannot violate state and federal discrimination laws, employment agreements, and you must be in accordance with the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

When can I Fire an Employee?

You can fire an employee for numerous reasons, and some of the most common include:

  • Incompetence
  • Repeated unexcused absences or tardiness
  • Sexual harassment
  • Verbal abuse
  • Physical violence
  • Falsification of records
  • Theft

It is important to note that an employer has the right to fire an employee for any legal reason. At-will employment laws differ from state to state, however, the laws are usually similar.

Keep Employee Performance Documents

Running a business involves many decisions, and those include hiring and firing employees. Often, these decisions are made due to performance issues, and a great way to minimize legal issues is to document how that employee performs.

Documentation should provide detailed information of incidents and any employee write-ups for disciplinary issues. Also, customer complaints and time cards can help give you the credence that you need when it comes to justifiably firing an employee.

Philadelphia Business Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Advocate for Employers Fending Off a Wrongful Termination Suit

When you own a company, the prospect that you will one day have a disgruntled employee is high. In this case, you will need our skilled Philadelphia business lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. to help you build a case. Call us at 215-574-0600 or contact us online for an initial consultation. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

Fired Law Firm Employee Not Entitled to Whistleblower Protections

By ,

A former accounts receivable clerk was terminated from her position at Martin & Seibert after she reported the firm for suspicious overbilling. She noticed billing irregularities, including billing clients at attorney rates for work that was done by secretaries and paralegals. After voicing her concerns to other individuals at the firm, she was fired. According to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, at-will private employees who report suspected criminal conduct are not entitled to whistleblower protections.

Shortly after she reported her suspicions, she discovered that her job had been posted. Another attorney at the firm told her that he suspected that certain members of the firm blamed her for the billing irregularities. He urged her to speak to a former U.S. attorney, who he reached out to for advice on her behalf. After speaking to the former accounts receivable clerk, the U.S. attorney contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

To protect herself, she collected 227 attachments of billable hour data and emailed it to herself. The firm fired her for disclosing confidential information, which was a violation of law firm policy. According to West Virginia courts, there is an exception to the rule that allows at-will employees to be fired if the employee is terminated for refusing to participate in illegal activity. However, the exception does not apply to employees who report wrongdoing. The court ruled that she was not entitled to whistleblower protections because she was a public employee. The legislature would be responsible for making any extensions to the law, not the court. A dissenting judge argued that the majority should have made an exception for an employee who is terminated for reporting alleged overbilling for legal services.

According to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, the federal whistleblower claim was no longer viable after a February 2018 Supreme Court decision that required reporting to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This decision was in response to a certified question by a federal court regarding the former employee’s whistleblower lawsuit.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Protect Employees Who Have Been Wrongfully Terminated

If you believe that you were wrongfully terminated from your job, it is in your best interest to contact the highly skilled Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. as soon as possible. We will work closely with you to understand the events leading up to your termination. Our experienced legal team will protect your rights and collect the documentation necessary to reach a successful settlement. To schedule an initial consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Located in Philadelphia, we serve clients throughout New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Lloyd Industries Ordered to Pay $1.04 Million to Terminated Employees in Whistleblower Case

By ,

Philadelphia whistleblower lawyers protect the rights of wrongfully terminated employees.A federal judge recently ordered Lloyd Industries to pay the largest punitive award ever given under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSH Act”) after two employees were illegally fired for speaking out against unsafe working conditions. The two workers were terminated after an inspection conducted by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”). According to the Regional Solicitor, all employees have a right to speak out about work conditions that are unhealthy or unsafe. If they are unfairly retaliated against for exercising those rights, they deserve to be compensated. The court awarded a total of $1,047,399 in lost wages and punitive damages to the two employees.

After a Lloyd Industries employee lost three fingers in a workplace accident, OSHA conducted an on-site investigation. The injured worker was fired shortly after the investigation began. A second employee was terminated for cooperating with OSHA after they identified a number of health and safety violations and began assessing penalties. A jury found that Lloyd Industries and its owner illegally fired the two employees for cooperating with OSHA during the inspection. They awarded $500,000 in punitive damages, which is the largest punitive award under the OSH Act. The court explained that the size of the award sends a strong message that this kind of retaliation with not be tolerated.

The two employees were also awarded $547,399 in front and back pay. Lloyd Industries and its owner were also ordered to post an anti-retaliation notice and refrain from ever violating the Section 11(c) or the OSH Act again. All employees are entitled to a safe and healthy work environment and if these basic rights are violated by an employer, or they are retaliated against for speaking out about poor work conditions, there will be severe consequences.

Also known as the “safety bill of rights,” the OSH Act was created to ensure that all employees in the United States have safe working conditions and that employers provide the necessary training, outreach, education and assistance necessary to maintain a safe work environment. This helps prevent serious work-related injuries and illnesses.

Philadelphia Whistleblower Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. Protect the Rights of Employees Who Have Been Wrongfully Terminated

If you were terminated from you job after speaking out about unsafe working conditions, it is in your best interest to contact the Philadelphia whistleblower lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green, P.C. as soon as possible. It takes a great deal of courage to speak out against an employer, but the law protects whistleblowers against unfair retaliation. Our skilled legal team will discuss the details of your case with you and recommend the best legal course of action. To set up a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our offices are located in Philadelphia, where we represent clients in South Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

PA Court Rules in Favor of Employer in Whistleblower Retaliation Case

By ,

Philadelphia employment lawyers discuss the PA court ruling in favor of the employer in a whistleblower retaliation case.A former employee of GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) alleged that he was wrongfully terminated from his job in retaliation for reporting concerns about potential security threats related to the company’s manufacturing and financial servers. The plaintiff filed a wrongful termination lawsuit against the company shortly after he was discharged. GSK responded by filing a motion for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX Act”) whistleblower retaliation claim. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the motion for summary judgment due to a lack of evidence to support the claim that the company violated any SEC regulations.

Highlights of the Case

The plaintiff had been with the company for 16 years prior to his termination. He was part of the team responsible for the AS/400 computer operating system. In 2011, he noticed that a co-worker had started using uncapped processors, which impacted the way the processors performed. GSK consumers began complaining about the overall performance of the processors after the uncapped systems were enabled. The plaintiff confronted the colleague, and notified his supervisor, as well as the vice president of enterprise systems and technologies. After he did not get the response he was hoping for, he notified the Global Compliance Office about the issue. Ultimately, he filed a complaint with the CEO of GSK. The plaintiff alleged that the company’s 2013 report to the SEC failed to mention any of the performance or security concerns that had been raised. After an internal investigation, GSK found that the plaintiff’s complaints were unsubstantiated.

In early 2014, GSK announced that only two of the AS/400 positions would remain in-house and that the rest would be outsourced. The plaintiff was encouraged to apply for one of those positions, but he chose not to because the language in the memo he received led him to believe that his employment would depend on the outcome of the investigation. After a number of postponed termination dates, he was told on April 8, 2015 that his position was being eliminated and that his last day of employment would be June 30, 2015.

The court ruled in favor of the defendant, holding that GSK disclosed the risks associated with the computer system’s poor performance. The company’s report also noted that the failure to protect important information and sensitive systems could have a negative impact on the company’s financial results. As a result, the court held that anyone with the training and experience that the plaintiff had could not believe that the defendant was in violation of the SOX Act.

Philadelphia Employment Lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. Advocate for the Rights of Whistleblowers

If you were wrongfully terminated in retaliation for an employment dispute, you are urged to contact the Philadelphia employment lawyers at Sidkoff, Pincus & Green P.C. To schedule a confidential consultation, call us today at 215-574-0600 or contact us online. Our offices are located in Philadelphia, where we represent clients in South Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Upholds Non-Economic Damages for Whistleblower Claims

By ,

Recently, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that wrongfully terminated whistleblowers can recover non-economic damages. Bailets v. Pa. Tpk. Comm’n., 2018 Pa. LEXIS 1498 (2018). Bailets centered around a whistleblower claim made by a manager of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC) alleging that they fired him in retaliation for reporting wrongdoings and waste to his supervisors. The lower court found in Plaintiff’s favor and awarded economic and noneconomic damages totaling over $3 million. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision and award of economic and non-economic damages.

This issue centered on whether the term “actual damages” in Section 125 of the Whistleblower Law should be narrowly or broadly interpreted to include non-economic damages. PTC argued that actual damages refer solely to economic damages because allowance of non-economic damages would be analogous to punitive damages. PTC also argued that exceptions to the Commonwealth’s immunity should be narrowly interpreted and thus non-economic damages should not be read into “actual damages.” The employee argued that actual damages include non-economic damages because the law’s purpose is remedial and serves to compel government compliance to the law. In addition, the employee argued that there is a long precedent in Pennsylvania that actual damages are equivalent to economic and non-economic damages. Furthermore, the employee argues that not awarding non-economic damages “would undermine the very purpose of the law to protect and encourage employee reporters of waste and wrongdoing.”

The Court approached this as an issue of statutory interpretation and held that the law must be liberally construed to allow non-economic damages, thus fulfilling the remedial purpose of the Whistleblower Law. Furthermore, the Court found that reading “actual damages” as solely economic damages would be superfluous considering the statute’s inclusion of different types of economic damages under the allowed types of recovery. The Court agreed with the employee that Pennsylvania’s precedence historically supports the finding that actual damages includes non-economic damages. The Court stressed that the state must allow recovery for non-economic harms such as humiliation, embarrassment, and mental anguish in order to make Plaintiff whole.. Going forward, Bailets is significant in that it will open the door for more claims under the Whistleblower Law and allow for a greater recovery for successful claimants.

For more information, please call our Philadelphia whistleblower lawyers at the Law Offices of Sidkoff Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or submit an online inquiry.

Third Circuit Affirms District Court in EMTALA Whistleblower Appeal

By ,

On June 12, 2018 the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that a fired nurse was not protected under the Emergency Treatment and Active Labor Act (“EMTALA”) whistleblower provision because she did not actually “report” a violation. Gillispie v. Regionalcare Hospital Partners, Inc., No.16-4307 (3rd Cir. 2018). The appellant in the case was the nurse on duty when a pregnant patient reported to the emergency room with complaints of vaginal bleeding and discomfort. After examining the distressed woman the hospital personnel discharged her to go directly to a gynecologist. The hospital did not transport the distressed woman nor were they able to contact the gynecologist to confirm she arrived. The hospital organized several conference calls and meetings to discuss whether the distressed woman’s discharge violated the EMTALA.

The EMTALA requires hospitals to first examine each patient to determine whether an emergency medical condition exits. If the examination reveals the patient is suffering from an emergency medical condition, the hospital usually must stabilize the patient before getting into the business of trying to discharge or transfer him or her elsewhere. A hospital that either (1) fails to properly screen a patient or (2) releases a patient without first stabilizing his or her emergency medical condition thereby violates EMTALA. Moreover, EMTALA’s whistleblower provision protects only employees who have “reported a violation” of one of the statutes provisions.

The appellant contends that during the meetings regarding the possible EMTALA violation, she insisted that the hospital report the circumstances surrounding the distressed woman’s discharge to the PA Department of Health or PA Patient Safety Authority. According to appellant, everyone in the meeting agreed that the hospital’s discharge failed to comply with EMTALA. Nevertheless, over the objections by appellant, no one at the hospital reported the discharge to any regulatory authority or agency.

The Court first pointed out that “in the absence of direct evidence of retaliation, courts have applied the McDonnell Douglas burden –shifting framework to whistleblower claims under EMTALA . . . Although [the Court] has not yet specifically decided if we should apply that framework to resolve EMTALA claims, we found that if a statute does not provide for a burden shifting scheme, McDonnell Douglas applies.” Therefore, the court set forth that the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting scheme will be utilized when analyzing EMTALA claims. Accordingly, Appellant had the burden to establish that (1) she engaged in conduct that is protected by EMTALA (2) her employer subsequently took an adverse employment action against her and (3) the employer did so because she engaged in protected activity.

The Court found that Appellant had not established a prima facie case because she had not “made a report” as that term is considered under EMTALA. Report was defined as “something that gives information” or “a notification”. The Court said that “it is clear that [Appellant] failed to establish that she actually provided any information of an alleged EMTALA violation to anyone”. Rather, Appellants own deposition shows that her efforts occurred after the CEO of the hospital and other attendees concluded the discharge was a violation. That testimony was “fatal” to her attempt to claim protection under the whistleblower provision because she did not “make a report” under EMTALA.

For more information, please call our Philadelphia whistleblower lawyers at the Law Office of Sidkoff Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or contact us online.

  Category: Whistleblower Retaliation
  Comments: Comments Off on Third Circuit Affirms District Court in EMTALA Whistleblower Appeal
  Other posts by

PA Supreme Court Upholds Non-Economic Damages for Whistleblowers

By ,

Recently, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that wrongfully terminated whistleblowers can recover non-economic damages. Bailets v. Pa. Tpk. Comm’n., 2018 Pa. LEXIS 1498 (2018). Bailets centered around a whistleblower claim made by a manager of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC) alleging that they fired him in retaliation for reporting wrongdoings and waste to his supervisors. The lower court found in Plaintiff’s favor and awarded economic and noneconomic damages totaling over $3 million. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision and award of economic and non-economic damages.

This issue centered on whether the term “actual damages” in Section 125 of the Whistleblower Law should be narrowly or broadly interpreted to include non-economic damages. PTC argued that actual damages refer solely to economic damages because allowance of non-economic damages would be analogous to punitive damages. PTC also argued that exceptions to the Commonwealth’s immunity should be narrowly interpreted and thus non-economic damages should not be read into “actual damages.” The employee argued that actual damages include non-economic damages because the law’s purpose is remedial and serves to compel government compliance to the law. In addition, the employee argued that there is a long precedent in Pennsylvania that actual damages are equivalent to economic and non-economic damages. Furthermore, the employee argues that not awarding non-economic damages “would undermine the very purpose of the law to protect and encourage employee reporters of waste and wrongdoing.”

The Court approached this as an issue of statutory interpretation and held that the law must be liberally construed to allow non-economic damages, thus fulfilling the remedial purpose of the Whistleblower Law. Furthermore, the Court found that reading “actual damages” as solely economic damages would be superfluous considering the statute’s inclusion of different types of economic damages under the allowed types of recovery. The Court agreed with the employee that Pennsylvania’s precedence historically supports the finding that actual damages includes non-economic damages. The Court stressed that the state must allow recovery for non-economic harms such as humiliation, embarrassment, and mental anguish in order to make Plaintiff whole. Going forward, Bailets is significant in that it will open the door for more claims under the Whistleblower Law and allow for a greater recovery for successful claimants.

For more information, please call our Philadelphia whistleblower lawyers at Sidkoff Pincus & Green at 215-574-0600 or submit an online inquiry.