O'ROURKE v. Commonwealth (2001)

P. 56(a). 18 43 Pa. Stat. § 1423(a). 19 O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1200 (Pa. 2001) (citing 43 Pa. Stat. § 1424(b)).

But the statutes indicate otherwise. 3 Pennsylvania law instructs us to “interpret statutory words . . . with reference to the context in which they appear.” O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1201 (Pa. 2001).

See, e.g., O'Rourke v. Commonwealth, 566 Pa. 161 , 170 n. 6, 778 A.2d 1194 , 1199 n. 6 (2001) ("[I]t is not the function of the appellate court to find facts, but to determine whether there is evidence in the record to justify the trial court's findings.") (citing Allegheny County v. Monzo, 509 Pa. 26, 35 , 500 A.2d 1096, 1101 (1985)).

See, e.g., Pennsylvania Dep't of Transportation v. Taylor, 576 Pa. 622 , 841 A.2d 108, 118 (2004) (Nigro, J., dissenting) ("in accomplishing our goal of ascertaining legislative intent, we do not interpret the words of a statute in isolation from each other, but rather, in the context in which they appear"); O'Rourke v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Corrections, 566 Pa. 161 , 778 A.2d 1194, 1201 (2001) ("we should not interpret statutory words in isolation, but must read them with r…

In addition, Mishoe and Hamer’s approach ignores the overall context of section 8371, which presupposes a single meaning for the term “court." See O’Rourke, 778 A.2d at 1201 (“we should not interpret statutory words in isolation, but must read them with reference to the context in which they appear”). .

Id. at 1202-03 (citations, footnote, and quotation marks omitted).

To establish a claim under the Whistleblower Law, the report of wrongdoing must have been made “prior to the alleged reprisal[.]” O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1200 (Pa. 2001) (quoting Section 4(b) of the Whistleblower Law, 43 P.S. § 1424(b)).

PAM - 4 such as that there was specific direction or information received not to file the report or [that] there would be adverse consequences because the report was filed.’” Golaschevsky, 720 A.2d at 759 (alterations original) (quoting Gray v. Hafer, 651 A.2d 221, 225 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994)); see also O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1200 (Pa. 2001) (“[A] Whistleblower Law claimant must come forward with some evidence of a connection between the report of wrongdoing and…

Section 4(c) of the Law; O’Rourke, 778 A.2d at 1200.

O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1199 (Pa. 2001).

Election, 577 Pa. 231 , 843 A.2d 1223, 1230 (2004) (citing O’Rourke v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 566 Pa. 161 , 778 A.2d 1194 , 1201 (2001) (“Only when the language of the statute is ambiguous does statutory construction become necessary.”)).

See, e.g., O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, 566 Pa. 161 , 778 A.2d 1194, 1201 (2001) (“[W]e should not interpret statutory words in isolation, but must read them with reference to the context in which they appear.”); Consulting Engineers Council of Pa. v. State Architects Licensure Bd., 522 Pa. 204, 560 A.2d 1375, 1377 (1989) (appellant’s argument fails as it is premised upon excerpting one subsection from context in which it appears— effect of one subsection can only be understood…

See generally O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, 566 Pa. 161, 173 , 778 A.2d 1194, 1201 (2001) (“[W]e should not interpret statutory words in isolation, but must read them with reference to the context in which they appear.”); 1 Pa.C.S. § 1903(a) (“Words and phrases shall be construed according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage[.]”).

Election, 843 A.2d 1223, 1230 (Pa. 2004) (citing O'Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1201 (Pa. 2001)); Ramich v. Workers' Comp.

Pa. 2015) (quoting O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1200 (Pa. 2001) (internal quotations omitted)).

Pa. Sept. 30, 2020) (citing O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1200 (Pa. 2001).

Supreme Court’s Remand Appellant petitioned for allowance of appeal seeking review of the following issues only, which the Supreme Court granted on November 16, 2021: (1) Whether this Court should allow this appeal to proceed where the Commonwealth Court in this case has rejected the well-established holding of the Supreme Court in O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, . . . 778 A.2d 1194, 1200 ([Pa.] 2001) and . . .[Golaschevsky] v. Department of Environmental Protection, . . . 720 A.2…

Pa. July 16, 2024) (“The PW[A] is designed to ensure ‘that employees are not discouraged from reporting violations of legal or ethical codes’ to their employers or other authorities.”) (quoting O'Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1202 (Pa. 2001)). 2.

O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1204 (Pa. 2001).

Pa. Oct. 20, 2022), appeal dismissed, No. 22-3181, 2023 WL 3529414 (3d Cir. Feb. 14, 2023) (citing O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1200 (Pa. 2001)). 64 Jacobs, 2022 WL 11804030 , at *3 (quoting O’Rourke, 778 A.2d at 1204 ) (internal quotation marks omitted). separate and legitimate reason for [the] actions only where plaintiff has satisfied the threshold showing of a causal connection.”65 “The connection between the report of wrongdoing and the alleged retaliatory a…

Of particular relevance to the analysis here the Court interprets a remedial statue “liberally ... to effect [its] objects and to promote justice.” Id. (citing O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1203 (Pa. 2001) - 52 - (“[R]emedial statutes are to be liberally construed to effect their objects.”)).

Of particular relevance to the analysis here the Court interprets a remedial statue “liberally ... to effect [its] objects and to promote justice.” Id. (citing O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1203 (Pa. 2001) - 52 - (“[R]emedial statutes are to be liberally construed to effect their objects.”)).

Of particular relevance to the analysis here the Court interprets a remedial statue “liberally ... to effect [its] objects and to promote justice.” Id. (citing O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1203 (Pa. 2001) - 52 - (“[R]emedial statutes are to be liberally construed to effect their objects.”)).

Of particular relevance to the analysis here the Court interprets a remedial statue “liberally ... to effect [its] objects and to promote justice.” Id. (citing O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1203 (Pa. 2001) - 52 - (“[R]emedial statutes are to be liberally construed to effect their objects.”)).

Of particular relevance to the analysis here the Court interprets a remedial statue “liberally ... to effect [its] objects and to promote justice.” Id. (citing O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1203 (Pa. 2001) - 52 - (“[R]emedial statutes are to be liberally construed to effect their objects.”)).

Of particular relevance to the analysis here the Court interprets a remedial statue “liberally ... to effect [its] objects and to promote justice.” Id. (citing O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1203 (Pa. 2001) - 52 - (“[R]emedial statutes are to be liberally construed to effect their objects.”)).

Of particular relevance to the analysis here the Court interprets a remedial statue “liberally ... to effect [its] objects and to promote justice.” Id. (citing O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1203 (Pa. 2001) - 52 - (“[R]emedial statutes are to be liberally construed to effect their objects.”)).

Of particular relevance to the analysis here the Court interprets a remedial statue “liberally ... to effect [its] objects and to promote justice.” Id. (citing O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1203 (Pa. 2001) - 52 - (“[R]emedial statutes are to be liberally construed to effect their objects.”)).

Of particular relevance to the analysis here the Court interprets a remedial statue “liberally ... to effect [its] objects and to promote justice.” Id. (citing O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1203 (Pa. 2001) - 52 - (“[R]emedial statutes are to be liberally construed to effect their objects.”)).

Ct. 2013)(citing O'Rourke Il v. | Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1200 (Pa. 2001); Golaschevsky v. Dept. of Envir't.

Rather, it is sufficient that a driver could easily have driven the car, for example 39 Id. § 1921(c). 40 Id. § 1928(c); see O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1203 (Pa. 2001) (“[R]emedial statutes are to be liberally construed to effect their objects.”). 41 1 Pa.C.S. § 1922(1). 42 Id. § 1922(4). 43 “In construing and giving effect to the text, we should not interpret statutory words in isolation, but must read them with reference to the context in which they appear.” …

O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1202 (Pa. 2001).

Moreover, in order to establish a violation of the Whistleblower law for retaliatory termination, a plaintiff must “show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that, prior to the alleged acts of retaliation, he had made a good faith report of wrongdoing to appropriate authorities.” O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1200 (Pa 2001); 43 P.S. § 1424(c).

“To accomplish that goal, we should not interpret statutory words in isolation, but must read them with reference to the context in which they appear.” O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1201 (Pa. 2001).

Pa. Aug. 14, 2019), aff’d, 820 F. App’x 138 (3d Cir. 2020) (citing 43 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 1424(b) and O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1200 (Pa. 2001)).

Pa. 2015) (quoting O’Rourke, 778 A.2d at 1200) (internal quotation marks omitted). 34 Lauren W. ex rel.

The Whistleblower Law was designed “to enhance openness in government and compel the government’s compliance with the law by protecting those who inform authorities of wrongdoing.” O'Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1202 (Pa. 2001) (cleaned up).

To make a prima facie case for wrongful discharge, “the plaintiff must show both a protected report of wrongdoing or waste and a causal connection between that report and the discharge.” Evans, 81 A.3d at 1064 (citing O’Rourke II v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1200 (Pa. 2001)).

O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, 566 Pa. 161 , 778 A.2d 1194, 1199 (2001).

DISCUSSION A. Liability under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law The Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law (the “PWL”) 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.” O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, 566 Pa. 161, 175 (2001) (internal citations omitted); see also Pa. Game Comm’n v. State Civ.

O'Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1200 (Pa. 2001).

Pa. Mar. 10, 2022) (“The McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework applies to retaliation claims brought pursuant to [the Whistleblower Law].”) (citing Anderson v. Board of School Directors of Millcreek Township School District, 574 F. App’x 169 , 173 & n.4 (3d Cir. 2014)). 27 O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1200 (Pa. 2001) (citing 43 Pa. Stat. § 1424(b)). 28 Id. employer offers such evidence, the burden shifts back to the [plaintiff] to show that this reason was …

To prove a cause of action for wrongful discharge under the PWL, a plaintiff must show both a good faith report of wrongdoing and a causal connection between that report and the discharge. 43 Pa. Stat. § 1423(a); O’Rourke II v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1200 (Pa. 2001); Evans v. Thomas Jefferson Univ., 81 A.3d 1062, 1064 (Pa. Commw.

Pa. 2015) (quoting O'Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1200 (Pa. 2001) (internal quotations omitted)).

Pa. 2015) (quoting O'Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1200 (Pa. 2001) (internal quotations omitted)).

Pa. 2010) (quoting O’Rourke, 778 A.2d at 1200); see also Anderson v. Bd. of Sch.

Bailets, 181 A.3d at 333 ; O’Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1203 (Pa. 2001).

Pa. 2015) (quoting O'Rourke v. Commonwealth, 778 A.2d 1194, 1200 (Pa. 2001) (internal quotations omitted)).

Election, 843 A.2d 1223, 1230 (Pa. 2004) (citing O’Rourke v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 778 A.2d 1194 , 1201 (Pa. 2001) (“Only when the language of the statute is ambiguous does statutory construction become necessary.”)).

In the first sentence, the General Assembly broadly refers to a “health care provider.” But the second sentence can reasonably be interpreted as limiting such a provider to a licensed one by requiring that, upon a conviction, the prosecutor “shall certify such conviction to the appropriate licensing board in the Department of State,” which “shall suspend of revoke the health care provider’s license,” See O’Rourke, 778 A.2d at 1201 (“[T]o ascertain and effectuate the intent o…