Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
KEVIN RYAN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Cause No. 1:06-cv-1770-JDT-TAB
) Judge John D. Tinder
) Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker
)
UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES, INC. )
)
Defendant. )
Pursuant to the Court's recent Order, Plaintiff Kevin Ryan respectfully submits his
Court has asked the parties to address the recent decision of the Indiana Supreme Court in
Meyers v. Meyers, 861 N.E.2d 704 (Ind. 2007). In Meyers, the Indiana Supreme Court
clearly intended only to reconfirm the existing law governing the scope of the public
policy exception to the employment at will doctrine. That doctrine, as stated in Frampton
v. Central Indiana Gas, 297 N.E.2d 425, 428 (Ind. 1973) and the cases that followed,
allows an employee to bring a common law tort claim of retaliatory discharge if the
right, fulfilment of a statutory duty, or refusal to engage in a violation of law for which
The Meyers court relied on one of its prior decisions as the basis for holding that
the claim of the plaintiff in Meyers did not fall within the public policy exception. Id.
-1-
Case 1:06-cv-01770-JDT-TAB Document 27-2 Filed 06/03/2007 Page 2 of 7
citing Morgan Drive Away, Inc. v. Brant, 489 N.E.2d 933, 934 (Ind. 1986). The court in
whistleblowing, albeit regarding a matter in which he had statutory rights. He was then
fired allegedly because of his complaints to his employer. The public policy exception to
employment at will in Indiana has not been extended to any whistleblowing but only
being fulfilled, or the employee refuses to commit a crime for which he would be
personally liable. Under Indiana law, complaining to one's boss that one's rights are being
violated is one (unprotected) thing, but following a procedure provided by statute to
vindicate your rights is another (protected) thing. In Meyers, the plaintiff was not
asserting a claim under one of Indiana's whistleblower statutes, but was asserting a
Upon a careful re-reading of Morgan Drive Away, Inc. v. Brant, 489 N.E.2d 933,
934 (Ind. 1986) (particularly in light of the Dissent) together with Frampton v. Central
Indiana Gas, 297 N.E.2d 425 (Ind. 1973), it is not clear that the two decisions of
Indiana's highest court are readily and entirely reconcilable. On the one hand, the court in
Morgan clearly does not overrule Frampton, even after noting the clear language in
Frampton that
Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas, 297 N.E.2d 425, 428 (Ind. 1973). The court in
Morgan instead praises the Frampton decision, stating "the well-reasoned Frampton
decision serves as a milestone in the march of Indiana common law." On the other hand,
the Dissent in Morgan clearly states a statutory basis for a right being exercised by the
plaintiff in Morgan which would appear to bring the plaintiff's action in Morgan within
-2-
Case 1:06-cv-01770-JDT-TAB Document 27-2 Filed 06/03/2007 Page 3 of 7
the scope of the Frampton rule. The majority in Morgan rejects this conclusion, but does
not provide any substantial explanation other than that the public policy exception stated
in Frampton is narrow and the court in Morgan was reluctant to extend it. Why the court
in Morgan believed that the Frampton rule would have to be extended to encompass the
The plaintiff in Morgan had apparently filed a small claims court action to recover
unpaid wages. It is unclear from either the majority opinion or the dissenting opinion in
Morgan whether the filing of such a small claims action was the proper enforcement
procedure for the statutory right in question, and whether if it was not, whether that fact
influenced the decision of the majority to find that the complaint in Morgan did not state
Morgan, it is Plaintiff's view that the Indiana Supreme Court would still decide today,
consistent with the rule set down in Frampton and recognized and praised in Morgan,
that an employee who exercises a clear statutory or constitutional right and who is then
fired because of the exercise of this right, as distinguished from a case where the
employee engaged only in internal whistleblowing (or was not an employee but a
contractor), would be able to state a claim that falls within the scope of Indiana's common
distinction drawn by the Indiana Supreme Court. The Indiana Supreme Court has not
recognized a right, under Indiana's public policy exception to the employment at will
doctrine, to complain to one's employer or blow the whistle generally. But Neither the
Meyers nor the Morgan decisions abandon the rule established in Frampton that the
Indiana public policy exception includes cases where the employee is fired for exercising
-3-
Case 1:06-cv-01770-JDT-TAB Document 27-2 Filed 06/03/2007 Page 4 of 7
In Plaintiff Kevin Ryan's case, Ryan may be protected even for his internal
Defendant's termination letter that Mr. Ryan was fired later for writing a letter to a federal
agency, the National Institutes for Standards and Technology (NIST). In this letter to
NIST, Ryan was seeking to have the agency correct its incompetent, negligent and
possibly dishonest studies of the World Trade Center collapse and sought to have the
major crime, terrorist act, or treasonous act, and to take appropriate action to deal with
those crimes and acts. Mr. Ryan was fired for petitioning his government for redress of
grievances, for seeking to alter and reform his government, and for reporting a potential
felony.
These actions by Mr. Ryan via his letter to NIST and the internal whistleblowing
that preceded and gave context to the letter (particularly for Defendant Underwriters
Laboratories) constitute the exercise of Ryan's specific rights under the Indiana
Constitution to alter and reform his government and under the First Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution to petition the government for redress of grievances, as well the
exercise of his right and the fulfillment of his duty under the criminal misprision of a
It was made clear in the Indiana Supreme Court's analysis in Meyers that a key as
to whether a given case falls under the Indiana public policy exception is whether there is
specific statutory language that reflects the right or duty at issue that was exercised by the
employee. In Mr. Ryan's case, there is an Indiana statute that provides a statutory cause
of action for Plaintiff Ryan’s wrongful discharge (whistleblower retaliation) claim. I.C.
22-5-3-3. See Coutee v. Lafayette Neighborhood Housing Servs., Inc., 792 N.E.2d 907,
911 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). Should this Court decide that this statute does not actually
-4-
Case 1:06-cv-01770-JDT-TAB Document 27-2 Filed 06/03/2007 Page 5 of 7
provide an independent cause of action for Mr. Ryan, then, in the alternative, the statute
clearly establishes and reflects a public policy that private employers such as
Underwriters Laboratories (UL) should not fire employees for engaging in protected
whistleblowing activities that fall within the scope of the statute, which Mr. Ryan's letter
clearly does.
In addition, as Plaintiff has previously briefed, there are also several statutory and
constitutional provisions that supply a source of public policy to support Ryan’s common
law claim for wrongful discharge under Indiana’s public policy exception to the
employment at will doctrine. Because Ryan’s Complaint states a wrongful discharge
claim under one or both of his two legal theories, a statute based whistleblower retaliation
claim and a common law based claim under the public policy exception to the
Should the Court find that Plaintiff has not stated a claim for wrongful discharge
under either the common law public policy exception to employment at will or under the
Indiana whistleblower statute discussed supra, Plaintiff expects that the Plaintiff's
amended complaint to be filed by May 14, 2007 will eliminate any perceived defects in
-5-
Case 1:06-cv-01770-JDT-TAB Document 27-2 Filed 06/03/2007 Page 6 of 7
Respectfully submitted,
-6-
Case 1:06-cv-01770-JDT-TAB Document 27-2 Filed 06/03/2007 Page 7 of 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing Plaintiffs’ proposed Corrected
attachment to the accompanying motion for leave to file corrected supplemental response
and thereby automatically served on the parties indicated below. Notice of this filing will
be sent to the following parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system.
Thomas E. Deer
Locke Reynolds LLP
201 North Illinois Street, Suite 1000
P.O. Box 44961
Indianapolis, IN 46244-0961
Tel: (317) 237-3800
Fax: (317) 237-3900
tdeer@locke.com
-7-