Donna Davis Javitz v. Luzerne County, Robert Lawton, and David Parsnik

Summary

The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court considers Donna Davis Javitz’s appeal following the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s reversal and remand in Javitz v. Luzerne County, 293 A.3d 570 (Pa. 2023). The appeal concerns claims under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law, the Luzerne County Accountability, Conduct and Ethics Code, and common-law wrongful termination, arising from an alleged unlawful recording of workplace investigatory meetings and subsequent employment retaliation. The court addresses the remaining issues concerning whether the alleged wrongdoing occurred and was attributable to the County, following the Supreme Court’s determination that Javitz presented sufficient evidence of causation for summary-judgment purposes.

Holdings

1. The record contained sufficient evidence from which a factfinder could determine that Schnelly recorded the meetings in violation of the Wiretap Act. The trial court therefore erred by resolving that disputed issue on summary judgment.
2. A report of an alleged Wiretap Act violation by a County employee constitutes a report of wrongdoing within the meaning of the Whistleblower Law even when the employee was acting as a union representative rather than specifically as a County representative. The County employee's employment status and the occurrence during County working hours were sufficient to attribute the alleged activity to the public body for purposes of summary judgment.
3. The trial court properly entered summary judgment on the Ethics Code claim because the Ethics Code does not authorize the remedies Javitz sought, including reinstatement, back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, or attorney fees and costs.
4. Javitz's common-law wrongful-termination claim was barred because the Whistleblower Law provided an available statutory remedy for the same whistleblowing allegations.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Paula Schnelly illegally recorded the investigatory meetings in violation of the Wiretap Act.
2. Whether Javitz's report concerned wrongdoing attributable to a public body under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law when the alleged recording was made by a County employee acting as a union representative during County working hours.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper on Javitz's claim under Luzerne County's Ethics Code whistleblower provision.
4. Whether Javitz could maintain a common-law wrongful-termination claim in violation of public policy when the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law provided an available statutory remedy.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded