Case Title: Javitz, D. v. Luzerne Co., et al - No. (Granted) (petitions for allowance of appeal)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 480 MAL 2021

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 2021-11-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT DONNA DAVIS JAVITZ, Petitioner v. LUZERNE COUNTY, ROBERT LAWTON, AND DAVID PARSNIK, Respondents : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 480 MAL 2021 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 16th day of November, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are: (1) Whether this Court should allow this appeal to proceed where the Commonwealth Court in this case has rejected the well-established holding of the Supreme Court in O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1200 (Pa. 2001) and Golashevsky v. Department of Environmental Protection, 720 A.2d 757, 759 (Pa. 1998) and instead determined that in order to establish a prima facie case under the Whistleblower Law a litigant must establish causation with direct evidence proving (1) the County directly threatened [Petitioner] with adverse employment action for filing a report or (2) specifically directed [Petitioner] not to file the report, in effect nullifying the Whistleblower Law? (2) Did the Commonwealth Court err in entering an order dismissing this appeal by limiting its finding of facts and misapplying the law established by the Supreme Court?