Bill Johns
Junior Member
Well this has certainly been an educational experience, except I don't understand anything I've learned. It seems my case has several problems in the eyes of justice.
1) nobody can say if a law was actually broken. Although the whistleblower statute (seems to) state that a report must only be in good faith and can be of a violation or suspected violation, according to multiple employment lawyers the law must have been broken to avoid dismissal. But the violated statute has never been tested, there are no court rulings on it. Although the language can be construed as somewhat ambiguous by those who would benefit from it, the intent seems clear. The state may have exploited a possible loophole. (Alas, I'll again have to decline identifying the statute publicly, as doing so would identify me). Also I get the sense that the law isn't "important" enough. Nobody was at risk of being killed or injured, nobody was swindling millions of dollars.
2) although there is nothing in the whistleblower statute about temporal relation of the reaction to the protected action, judges (or so I'm told) require near proximity. Although there is no doubt that the adverse actions are linked to the report of (suspected) violation, the adverse actions that can be definitely linked came many weeks later. Many other adverse actions that can't be linked definitely to my reports occurred in much closer proximity, but those don't seem to matter. I don't understand this reasoning-if later adverse reactions can be linked to the protected activity it seems rather likely earlier actions are too.
3) apparently plaintiffs must be careful to complain about violations that have severe adverse effects on themselves with utmost courtesy (perhaps present it with a bouquet of flowers), otherwise they can be accused of misbehavior by the employer that could outweigh their protected activity in the eyes of judges (so I'm told).
4) its too much trouble or perhaps too expensive to disprove the easily falsifiable reasons given for the adverse actions. Given how the judges are (apparently) thinking on other aspects, it may be pointless anyway.
5) the employer performed one action that was superficially beneficial to me shortly after after one of my reports, which in the mind of judges (so I'm told) will nullify the adverse actions that are definitely linked to the my reports. But there are selfish reasons they performed that superficially beneficial action. They benefited from it far more than I did.
The bald fact that I was severely retaliated against for reporting suspected violations doesn't seem to matter much here.
1) nobody can say if a law was actually broken. Although the whistleblower statute (seems to) state that a report must only be in good faith and can be of a violation or suspected violation, according to multiple employment lawyers the law must have been broken to avoid dismissal. But the violated statute has never been tested, there are no court rulings on it. Although the language can be construed as somewhat ambiguous by those who would benefit from it, the intent seems clear. The state may have exploited a possible loophole. (Alas, I'll again have to decline identifying the statute publicly, as doing so would identify me). Also I get the sense that the law isn't "important" enough. Nobody was at risk of being killed or injured, nobody was swindling millions of dollars.
2) although there is nothing in the whistleblower statute about temporal relation of the reaction to the protected action, judges (or so I'm told) require near proximity. Although there is no doubt that the adverse actions are linked to the report of (suspected) violation, the adverse actions that can be definitely linked came many weeks later. Many other adverse actions that can't be linked definitely to my reports occurred in much closer proximity, but those don't seem to matter. I don't understand this reasoning-if later adverse reactions can be linked to the protected activity it seems rather likely earlier actions are too.
3) apparently plaintiffs must be careful to complain about violations that have severe adverse effects on themselves with utmost courtesy (perhaps present it with a bouquet of flowers), otherwise they can be accused of misbehavior by the employer that could outweigh their protected activity in the eyes of judges (so I'm told).
4) its too much trouble or perhaps too expensive to disprove the easily falsifiable reasons given for the adverse actions. Given how the judges are (apparently) thinking on other aspects, it may be pointless anyway.
5) the employer performed one action that was superficially beneficial to me shortly after after one of my reports, which in the mind of judges (so I'm told) will nullify the adverse actions that are definitely linked to the my reports. But there are selfish reasons they performed that superficially beneficial action. They benefited from it far more than I did.
The bald fact that I was severely retaliated against for reporting suspected violations doesn't seem to matter much here.
