Supreme Court split over whistle blower act | Arkansas Blog

Thursday, June 9, 2016

Supreme Court split over whistle blower act

Posted By on Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 10:22 AM

A case brought under the Arkansas Whistleblower Act revealed a division on the court on whether that act can override the state's protection from lawsuit under the sovereign immunity doctrine.

Eugene Butler sued the University of Arkansas over his firing as a UAPB police officer. He alleged he was fired for reporting waste and ethical violations on campus and he sought relief under the Whistle Blower Act.

The UA said it was protected from suit by sovereign immunity and also said he had failed to state a cause of action under the law. Judge Tim Fox, however, rejected a dismissal motion without specifying why and the UA appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court found "no factual basis" for a whistle blower claim, reversed Fox and dismissed the lawsuit, in a split decision that didn't resolve the constitutional status of the the Whistle Blower Act.

The Constitution forbids the General Assembly from waiving sovereign immunity, but there are avenues to seek equitable relief for acts of bad faith. In this case, the Court said Butler made conclusory statements but it was "unclear what, if anything, he actually reported. Furthermore it is unclear what he refused to lie about or that he was terminated because he refused to lie." Absent such an argument, Butler failed to state facts that entitled him to relief. With no valid exception to sovereign immunity given, it cannot be waived. The majority said it "need not reach" the question of whether the statute was unconstitutional.l

Special Justice Margaret Dobson concurred in dismissal, though she argued that Butler HAD given a cause of action by showing he'd been threatened with firing for revealing information about an audit of a dormitory. However, she said that she believed the General Assembly's waiver of sovereign immunity through the Whistle Blower Act was unconstitutional.

Justices Paul Danielson, joined by Special Justice Robert Jones, dissented because they said Judge Fox hadn't clearly ruled on the sovereign immunity issue and thus the Supreme Court lacked authority to hear the interlocutory appeal. Justice Jo Hart also dissented for a similar reason. She said the court should have ordered Fox to make an express ruling on sovereign immunity.

Is the Whistle Blower Act constitutional? That question will have to be  decided another day.






Tags: ,


Sign up for the Daily Update email
Favorite

Comments

Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

More by Max Brantley

Readers also liked…

  • Arkansas: Land of .......

    Welcome to Arkansas: Land of cowardly politicians, discriminatory laws, inhumane turkey drops and lots and lots of Trump voters.
    • Oct 8, 2016
  • Sabin's subterfuge in the race for mayor has roots in rigged city government

    The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reports that an ethics complaint has been filed saying that the exploratory committee Rep. Warwick Sabin created to prepare for a run for Little Rock mayor was a subterfuge to avoid the city ordinance that doesn't allow campaign fundraising to begin until five months before the November 2018 election.Of course it is.
    • Aug 10, 2017
  • UPDATE: Hutchinson moves to cover himself on cut to War Memorial Stadium

    Gov. Asa Hutchinson apparently felt the burn from KARK's exclusive Tuesday night on his plans to cut state support of War Memorial Stadium in half beginning July 1, 2018. He has a so-far secret plan to make the stadium self-sustaining. We bet that doesn't include state support.
    • Oct 20, 2016

Most Recent Comments

Slideshows

 

© 2018 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation