Opinion ID: 2259343
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Issue One: Definition of Wrongdoing

Text: Section 3 of the Whistleblower Law, 43 P.S. § 1423(a), provides as follows: (a) Persons not to be discharged  No employer may discharge, threaten or otherwise discriminate or retaliate against an employee regarding the employee's compensation, terms, conditions, location or privileges of employment because the employee or a person acting on behalf of the employee makes a good faith report or is about to report, verbally or in writing, to the employer or appropriate authority an instance of wrongdoing or waste. Pursuant to the definitional section of the Whistleblower Law, 43 P.S. § 1422, the statute applies to public bodies, including Commonwealth agencies like DER. 43 P.S. § 1422 also defines wrongdoing as: A violation which is not of a merely technical or minimal nature of a Federal or State statute or regulation, of a political subdivision ordinance or regulation or of a code of conduct or ethics designed to protect the interest of the public or the employer. This definition was at issue in Gray v. Hafer, 168 Pa.Cmwlth. 613, 651 A.2d 221 (Pa.Cmwlth.1994), affirmed per curiam, 542 Pa. 607, 669 A.2d 335 (1995), in which an employee of the Department of the Auditor General reported to his superiors instances of allegedly improper conduct perpetrated by employees of another governmental unit. In that context, the Commonwealth Court interpreted the statutory definition of wrongdoing as follows: In determining whether wrongdoing is established by reporting violations not only of crimes of the employer but of third parties, we must look to the definition of wrongdoing. Within the definition of wrongdoing, there is a requirement that the violation of the law or regulation be one that is designed to protect the interest of the public or employer. While the definition uses the phrase to protect the interest of the public, and that could be interpreted to apply to any statute or ordinance as used in the context of retaliation taken by an employer because of an employee's work performance, that requirement means that a statute or regulation is of the type that the employer is charged to enforce for the good of the public or is one dealing with the internal administration of the governmental employer in question. Gray, 651 A.2d at 224. In so limiting the definition of wrongdoing, Gray was principally concerned with preventing employees from invoking the Whistleblower Law in cases where there could be no rational relation between the alleged illegal activity and the employer's conduct. However, Gray's limitation of the definition of wrongdoing plainly does not apply where, as here, the employee alleges that there has been illegal activity within his own agency. Under these circumstances, pursuant to the plain language of 43 P.S. § 1422, wrongdoing includes not only violations of statutes or regulations that are of the type that the employer is charged to enforce, but violations of any federal or state statute or regulation, other than violations that are of a merely technical or minimal nature. [2] Although here there is some question whether the alleged copyright violations Appellant reported to his supervisors would come within the technical or minimal exception, we need not reach that issue, because Appellant clearly has not met his burden of demonstrating a causal connection between his report and the subsequent termination of his employment.