Opinion ID: 2321350
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Lawson's Whistleblower Complaint

Text: On September 4, 2007, Lawson sought relief from Waiters's decision to terminate his employment by filing a Whistleblower Complaint against the University Police Department with the Maryland Department of Budget and Management (DBM) pursuant to Section 5-301 et seq. of the State Personnel and Pensions Article (SPP) of the Maryland Annotated Code. Md.Code (1993, 2004 Repl.Vol.) (the Whistleblower Act). On January 8, 2008, the Office of Statewide Equal Employment Opportunity Coordinator (OSEEOC) denied the complaint, and Lawson appealed to the Maryland Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). Following a hearing, the OAH Administrative Law Judge affirmed the OSEEOC's denial on July 11, 2008. The ALJ ruled that Lawson's letter to Travis was not a protected disclosure because Lawson did not reasonably believe that the disclosed information contained evidence of abuse of authority, gross mismanagement, gross waste of money, a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or a violation of law[.] The ALJ found that Lawson not to be credible because his statements were motivated by a crusade to make changes to the department himself. The ALJ dismissed Lawson's concerns related to the arrest on the grounds that [Ducellier and Blue] credibly testified as to the events of that night, and [Waiters], a man with substantial experience in narcotics cases, also credibly testified that he felt nothing untoward went on that night. The ALJ did not reach the issue of whether the Department would have terminated Lawson notwithstanding the disclosure because he had already dismissed Lawson's complaint on the grounds that the letter was not a protected disclosure. Lawson appealed to the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, which affirmed the OAH decision. Lawson then sought review by the Court of Special Appeals, and this Court issued a writ of certiorari sua sponte before a decision by the intermediate appellate court. 417 Md. 500, 10 A.3d 1180 (2011).