In a recent ruling, Bensinger v. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, the Pennsylvania Superior Court provided a clear answer to the question of whether parties are entitled to a jury trial under Pennsylvania’s Whistleblower Law. The Court began its analysis by noting that the Whistleblower Law is ‘chiefly a remedial measure intended to enhance openness in government and compel the government’s compliance with the law by protecting those who inform authorities of wrongdoing’.
In analyzing the requirements of the statute, the Bensinger Court began by examining the actual text of the statue, noting that the legislature speaks only of a court rendering a judgment, weighing the various remedies, having the discretion to award costs and determining if an award is appropriate. The court with emphasis added observed never once does the actual language of the statute refer to a jury. In a footnote, the Court notes that even the most recent amendment to the statute, signed into law in July 2014, which deals with attorney’s fees, only references the power and action of the court.
In a portion of the opinion written as a comparative analysis, the Bensinger court analogizes the Whistleblower statute to the Pennsylvania right to jury decisions on bad faith insurance claims, action under Pennsylvania’s Human Relations Act (“PHRA”) and Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Practice Law (“UTPCPL”) concluding that much like the Supreme Court and Superior Court decisions in those cases, where the statute only refers to the power, findings and discretion of “the Court”, then there is no right to a jury. The Bensinger Court also dismissed the alternative argument that if no statutory right to a jury existed, then there must be a constitutional right to a jury. Bensinger explained that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has clearly explained that two requirements must be satisfied for a right to a trial that is guaranteed by the Pennsylvania Constitution. First, it must be shown that a right to a jury “would have been required in 1790, when the Constitution was adopted”. Second, the action must have a common law basis, not a statutory basis. The Bensinger court quickly explained that the Whistleblower statute met neither requirement. Lastly, the Court noted that the Whistleblower law only covers public employees as common law wrongful discharge actions are generally only available to private sector employees.
The Bottom Line
School districts and other educational organizations are no strangers to Whistleblower suits. You should contact your school solicitor if you have any questions regarding this complex area of employment law. At KingSpry, we have several attorneys that practice in the area of employment law including public sector employment and are very familiar with the law involving this category of employee.
School Law Bullets are a publication of the KingSpry Education Law Practice Group. John E. Freund, III, is our editor. The article is meant to be informational and does not constitute legal advice.
