Case Study 1-2 Discharge for Whistleblower Activity

CASE STUDY 1-2 Discharge for Whistleblower Activity

1. Should the federal appeals court deny Broom and Miller’s appeal and enforce the decision of the state district court finding upholding the discharge of the two whistleblowers? Explain your reasoning.

The Plaintiffs argued that their discharge fell in the fifth public policy exception to employment-at-will doctrine and cited three statutory laws (Nursing Home Care Act, Residential Care Act, Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substance Act) to support their claim that Oklahoma has a strong public policy encouraging reporting of theft or drug use by employees in elderly care facilities.

First, the Nursing Home Care Act specifically excludes residential care facilities. Second, while the Residential Care Act does incorporate some provisions of the Nursing Home Care Act, the plaintiffs did not cite any of these provisions or identify any regulation to support their case before the district court or the Court of Appeals. Thus, the Plaintiffs failed to make a strong argument to support a public policy exception under this act. Finally, the Plaintiff also failed to show any provision of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substance Act that supports their position. Since the Plaintiffs failed to properly present their position under the three laws, the federal appeals court should deny Broom and Miller’s appeal and enforce the decision of the state district court finding upholding the discharge of the two whistleblowers.

2. How might this case have been handled differently if Broom and Miller had been members of a bargaining unit represented by a union for purposes of collective bargaining?

The case may have been handled differently if Broom and Miller were represented by a union. First of all, the union contract may have had a specific clause on rights of whistleblowers that may have protected them. Secondly, the presence of a union would have enabled Broom and Miller to get advice from the shop steward or...