Opinion ID: 2559178
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Superior Court properly denied Cheswold's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law.

Text: Cheswold first claims that Vann is precluded from proceeding with his Whistleblowers' Act claims because our Vann II decision, holding that Cheswold's fifteen stated reasons constituted just cause to terminate Vann as police chief, constitutes an adjudication that the town validly fired Vann under his contract. According to Cheswold, issue preclusion bars Vann's remaining claims because if Cheswold properly terminated Vann for just cause, it is legally impossible for Vann to show that the primary reason for his termination was retaliation and the Superior Court should have granted Cheswold's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. To the extent Cheswold claims that the trial court determined the applicable law incorrectly or failed to grant judgment as a matter of law because of legally insufficient evidence, we review those claims de novo for legal error because they involve the formulation and application of legal concepts. [10] Our decision in Vann II does not preclude Vann's Whistleblowers' Act claims. The issues decided in Vann II and in this case are different. In Vann II, we addressed whether Cheswold's fifteen stated reasons, if established, were sufficient to satisfy the just cause standard in 11 Del. C. § 9301. [11] In this case, which involves whistleblower claims, the issue was whether or not the primary basis for Vann's discharge was retaliation. [12] The Superior Court correctly determined that Vann's Whistleblowers' Act claims raised a separate and distinct issue from that of just cause. Even though Cheswold articulated fifteen reasons that, if proved, were legally sufficient to show just cause for Vann's termination, those fifteen reasons may not, in fact, have been the primary basis for Cheswold firing him. Accordingly, the Superior Court correctly determined that Vann II does not preclude Vann's whistleblower claims. Cheswold has neither argued nor shown that the jury verdict on this matter was clearly erroneous or unsupported by the evidence. Indeed, it was not. Therefore, the Superior Court properly denied Cheswold's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law.