Whistleblower lawsuit begins against Penn State in Sandusky case
In 2011, when charges were first brought against assistant Penn State football coach, Jerry Sandusky, for sexually preying on children, fellow assistant coach Mike McQueary was consequently suspended with pay. However, after Sandusky was found guilty of abusing 10 boys in 2012, Penn State terminated McQueary’s $140,000-a-year-job because of what he believes was retaliation by the University for helping prosecutors. These allegations arose after claims that that prosecutors were purposely misled by high-ranking university administrators.
In McQueary’s “whistleblower lawsuit,” he seeks more than $4 million in damages because he claims he can no longer find work as a football coach since he is now associated with being part of a cover-up. McQueary testified that he was even turned down for a job at RiteAid because of his association with Sandusky. He alleges that the University’s president defamed him personally on the day Sandusky was formally charged. McQueary, who personally witnessed Sandusky sexually assaulting a boy in the university’s locker room, reported the incident to the head coach a the time, Joe Paterno, and then later met with the university’s athletic director and vice-president. Yet because McQueary never reported the allegations directly to the police, his conduct is also under investigation in a separate suit.
In this case, we are therefore left with the question of whether the Penn State has adequate grounds to not renew McQueary’s contract. McQueary claims that the University knew about the abuse for almost eleven years, but failed to act on it. When two administrators were charged with perjury and failing to report suspected child abuse, McQueary stated knew his job was in trouble. The United States Supreme Court in Lawson v. FMR LLC, outlined the prohibition of retaliatory actions based on whistleblowing, including discharge, demotion, suspension, or discrimination. However, the Court limited its analysis federal contractors and those working within the financial markets. Yet should we extend the protections of this whistleblower rule if, in essence, the person did not take the appropriate steps to ensure that the improper actions were stopped? McQueary witnessed Sandusky’s abuse in 2001, but charges were not brought against him until 2009. Eight years went by. Eight years filled with approximately 45 more incidents of abuse. Does eight years of no action warrant these types of monetary damages? Or, on the other hand, should someone be punished for not being able to find a job because they were simply guilty by association? McQueary reported the incident to many of his supervisors and were reassured they were going to take care of it. Should he be punished because of their apathy or decision to turn a blind eye? These are the questions that a jury of nine women and three men will have to decide at the end of this trial.