Tara Kent, Ph.D. v. Cheyney University of Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education

No. 349 M.D. 2019 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Dec. 15 2022) (mem.) · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · December 15, 2022 · No. No. 349 M.D. 2019

Summary

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania considered Respondents’ application for summary relief in Tara Kent’s Whistleblower Law action arising from her termination by Cheyney University. The court denied summary relief as to Cheyney because material factual disputes remained regarding the alleged wrongdoing, causation, and the legitimacy of the stated termination reasons. It granted summary relief to PASSHE and dismissed PASSHE as a party because Cheyney’s president had authority over Kent’s employment and the record did not establish PASSHE’s control over the termination decision.

Holdings

  1. Cheyney was not entitled to summary relief because genuine factual disputes remained concerning whether Dr. Kent reported protected wrongdoing or waste, whether Cheyney directed her not to disclose her concerns, whether a threat of retaliation could be inferred, and whether the stated reason for her termination was legitimate.
  2. PASSHE was entitled to summary relief and was dismissed because it was not Dr. Kent's employer, lacked statutory authority to terminate her, and was not shown to have controlled the termination decision or to be vicariously liable for Cheyney's conduct.
  3. A Whistleblower Law claimant must establish a causal connection between the report of wrongdoing and the adverse employment action through concrete facts or surrounding circumstances; merely showing that termination occurred after a report is insufficient.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Cheyney was entitled to summary relief on Dr. Kent's claim that her termination violated the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law.
  2. Whether PASSHE could be liable under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law when Cheyney, rather than PASSHE, employed Dr. Kent and made the termination decision.
  3. Whether the record contained genuine factual disputes concerning the alleged wrongdoing, causation, and Cheyney's asserted legitimate reason for terminating Dr. Kent.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (10)

  • Summit Sch., Inc. v. Dep't of Educ., 108 A.3d 192, 195-96 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015)(followed)
  • Bell Atl.-Pa., Inc. v. Tpk. Comm'n, 703 A.2d 589, 590 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997), aff'd, 713 A.2d 96 (Pa. 1998)(followed)
  • Dep't of Transp. v. UTP Corp., 847 A.2d 801, 806 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004)(followed)
  • Borough of Nanty-Glo v. Am. Sur. Co. of N.Y., 163 A. 523 (Pa. 1932)(followed)
  • Eleven Eleven Pa., LLC v. State Bd. of Cosmetology, 169 A.3d 141, 145 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017)(followed)
  • Golaschevsky v. Dep't of Env't Prot., 720 A.2d 757, 759 (Pa. 1998)(followed)
  • Evans v. Thomas Jefferson Univ., 81 A.3d 1062, 1070 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013)(followed)
  • O'Rourke v. Dep't of Corr., 778 A.2d 1194, 1200, 1204 (Pa. 2001)(followed)
  • Vance v. Cheyney University of Pennsylvania, No. 210 M.D. 2017, slip op. at 8-9 (Pa. Cmwlth. July 8, 2021)(followed)
  • Sabater v. Pa. Ins. Dep't, No. 637 M.D. 2014, slip op. at 7 (Pa. Cmwlth. Jan. 3, 2019)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…