Todd Crawley lawsuit

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TODD A. CRAWLEY, : No.Plaintiff :

:vs : Civil Action Law

: (Electronically filed)HARRISBURG AREA :COMMUNITY COLLEGE; JOHN :J. SYGIELSKI in his individual and : Jury Trial Demandedofficial capacity; And DENNIS P. :HEINLE, in his individual and official :capacity, :

Defendants :

COMPLAINT

NOW COMES Plaintiff, Todd A. Crawley, by and through his counsel, Clark

& Krevsky, LLC, who files the following Complaint:

INTRODUCTION

1. This action is initiated by Mr. Crawley, a current employee of Harrisburg

Area Community College (HACC), who alerted officials of said college of its

material violations of law and who, after alerting these officials of the material

violations, experienced retaliation and discrimination. Mr. Crawley seeks relief

under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733 (the False Claims Act) and

Pennsylvanias Whistleblower Law, Act of December 12, 1986, P.L. 1559 (the

Case 1:13-cv-01717-CCC Document 1 Filed 06/24/13 Page 1 of 26

2Whistleblower Law), 43 P.S. 1421 et seq., against HACC; its president, John J.

Sygielski (Sygielski); and its interim chief human resources officer, Dennis P.

Heinle (Heinle).

PARTIES, JURISDICTION & VENUE

2. Mr. Crawley is an adult individual and citizen of the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania having a principal residence at 314 E. King Street, Shippensburg, PA

17257.

3. Defendant HACC is a community college established and operated under

authority of Article XIX-A of the Public School Code of 1949, Act of March 10,

1949, P.L. 30, 24 P.S. 1901-A1918-A; HACC operates campuses in the

counties of Dauphin, Adams, Lancaster, Lebanon and York, and has its principal

place of business located at 1 HACC Drive, Harrisburg, PA 17110.

4. Defendant Sygielski is an adult individual and citizen of the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania having a principal place of business at 1 HACC Drive, Harrisburg,

PA 17110. At times relevant hereto, Defendant Sygielski was the President of

HACC. Defendant Sygielski is sued in his individual and official capacities.

5. Defendant Heinle is an adult individual and citizen of the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania having a principal place of business at 1 HACC Drive, Harrisburg,

PA 17110. At times relevant hereto, Defendant Heinle was Defendant HACCs


3Interim Chief Human Resources Officer. Defendant Heinle is sued in his individual

and official capacities.

6. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 as the case arises

under the False Claims Act; this Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over state

claims under 28 U.S.C. 1367.

7. Venue lies within the Middle District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1391(d) as the facts and circumstances, acts and/or omissions, and incidents and/or

actions alleged herein took place in this judicial district.

BACKGROUND FACTS

Plaintiffs Employment History with HACC

8. Prior to April 2006, Mr. Crawley served as the Facility Safety Manager of

Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, OH.

9. In April of 2006, HACC hired Mr. Crawley as Safety Coordinator; in said

position:

a. Mr. Crawley was responsible for developing, maintaining, and

managing safety affairs for the college;

b. Mr. Crawley reported to HACCs Director of Safety and Security.

10. In 2009, HACC promoted Mr. Crawley to the position of Director of

Environmental Health and Safety; in said position:


4a. Mr. Crawley was responsible for developing, maintaining, and

managing safety, risk management, and environmental affairs for the

college;

b. Mr. Crawley reported to HACCs Director of Finance and College

Resources.

11. In July 2012, HACC promoted Mr. Crawley to the position of Director of

Public Safety; in said position:

a. Mr. Crawley was for coordinating daily operations of the security

department of all campuses of HACC, including supervising a staff of

three;

b. Mr. Crawley reported to HACCs Vice-President of Human

Resources.

12. In addition to the above, since 2011, HACC designated Mr. Crawley as its

Coordinator (the Title IX Coordinator) under Title IX of the Education

Amendments of 1972. a federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of

sex in any federally funded education program or activity, making Mr. Crawley the

responsible employee of HACC with major responsibility for compliance efforts

with said law.


5Mr. Crawley Discovers Noncompliance with SDFSCA

13. In or about 2006, after his appointment as Safety Coordinator at HACC, Mr.

Crawley discovered that HACC was not compliant with requirements of the Safe

and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act, 20 U.S.C. 7101 et seq. (the

SDFSCA) since 1991.

14. The SDFSCA imposes certain requirements on institutions receiving federal

financial assistance, including colleges.

15. On information and belief, HACC was receiving federal financial assistance

in 2006.

16. On information and belief, HACC had received federal financial assistance

in years prior to 2006.

17. The SDFSCA requires institutions receiving federal financial assistance to

perform the following, among other requirements:

a. Establish drug and alcohol abuse prevention programs for students

and employees.

b. Annually provide students and employees with materials that contain

standards of conduct, a description of the various laws that apply in

that jurisdiction regarding alcohol and drugs, a description of

counseling and treatment programs that are available, and a statement


6on the sanctions the institution will impose for a violation of the

standards of conduct.

c. Biennially review the drug and alcohol abuse prevention program.

d. Keep records, including a copy of the biennial review and other

compliance documents, for three years after the fiscal year in which

the record was created.

18. In or about 2006, Mr. Crawley discovered that HACC had failed to establish

a drug and alcohol abuse prevention program as required by the SDFSCA.

19. In or about 2006, Mr. Crawley discovered that HACC was not in compliance

with SDFSCA.

20. In or about 2006, Mr. Crawley discovered that HACC had not been in

compliance with SDFSCA in years prior to 2006.

21. In or about 2006, Mr. Crawley discovered that HACC had been accepting

federal financial assistance in 2006 and years prior thereto while not in compliance

with SDFSCA.

Mr. Crawley Raises Concerns about HACCs Failure to establish a Drug andAlcohol Prevention and Abuse Program and is Instrumental in Establishing

Such a Program at HACC

22. In or about spring of 2006, Mr. Crawley was assigned to conduct an audit of

matters relating to safety programs at HACC (the Safety Audit).


723. During the course of the Safety Audit, Mr. Crawley expressed verbally and

in writing his concern that HACC lacked a SDFSCA-compliant program.


in writing his concern that HACC was receiving, or had received, federal financial

assistance without a SDFSCA-compliant program.


in writing his concern that HACCs receipt of federal financial assistance without a

SDFSCA-compliant program placed HACC at risk of non-compliance with the

SDFSCA and/or risked HACCs eligibility to receive federal financial assistance.

26. In his Safety Audit report, Mr. Crawley addressed his concerns in paragraphs

23 through 25 above, to his supervisor, the then-Director of Safety and Security.

27. In December 2006, HACC created a committee (the D&A Committee)

tasked to establish a drug and alcohol abuse and prevention program.

a. The then-Director of Safety and Security was a chair of the D&A

Committee;

b. Mr. Crawley was assigned as a member of the D&A Committee.

c. The D&A Committee also included approximately six members; Co-

chair David Morrison; Co-chair, Leiykun Kassahun, Director of


8Safety and Security; Joeseph Wojtysiak, Director of Facilities; and an

unknown number of faculty members.

28. Although Mr. Crawley used his best efforts as a member of the D&A

Committee to effect a drug and alcohol abuse and prevention program at HACC,

the 2006-07 school year ended without the D&A Committee having established

such a program.

29. In the 2007-08 school year, the D&A Committee comprised largely as

described in Paragraph 27, above, continued to meet but nonetheless did not

establish a drug and alcohol abuse and prevention program by the end of said

school year.

30. In or about 2008, Mr. Crawley assessed the failure of the D&A Committee to

establish a drug and alcohol abuse and prevention program and observed that

HACCs governance system impeded the committee from establishing said

program.

31. In his role as Safety Coordinator, Mr. Crawley was without authority to

establish a drug and alcohol abuse and prevention program at HACC on his own

without approval by the D&A Committee.

32. In or about 2008, Mr. Crawley, on his own initiative to expedite HACCs

implementation of a drug and alcohol abuse and prevention program, developed


9such a program as a college administrative procedure that was not required to

undergo detailed approval by a committee.

33. In or about 2009, the administrative procedure through which Mr. Crawley

developed a drug and alcohol abuse and prevention program was in turn adopted

by the D&A Committee.

34. Upon the adoption of the administrative procedure described in paragraphs

32 and 33, HACC established a drug and alcohol abuse and prevention program

(the Program) in 2009.

35. It was through Mr. Crawleys initiative that HACC created the Program in

2009.

36. On information and belief, HACC did not establish a drug and alcohol abuse

and prevention program in compliance with SDFSCA before 2009.

37. The SDFSCA requires that an institution that receives federal financial

assistance conduct a biennial review of its drug and alcohol abuse and prevention

program.

38. Mr. Crawley conducted HACCs first and only biennial program review in

2011, covering the years 2009 and 2010.


10

39. In or around December 2010, he submitted the biennial program review

draft to the then-Vice-President of Finance and College Resources, whom Mr.

Crawley understood was to submit the same to the then-President of HACC.

40. Upon receiving approval from the then-Vice-President of Finance and

College Resources, Mr. Crawley internally filed the biennial review of the drug

and alcohol abuse and prevention program with HACC.

The United States Department of Education Conducts an Audit of HACCOperations

41. During the week of December 3, 2012, two representatives of the United

States Department of Education (USDE) appeared on the HACC campus to audit

one or more programs of the college (the Audit).

42. On information and belief, the Audit was unannounced.

43. The USDE representatives conducting the Audit sought information

pertaining to the SDFSCA and the Clery Act (relating to required reporting and

disclosure about crime on and around college and university campuses.).

44. HACC directed Mr. Crawley to answer the USDE representatives questions

in regard to HACC activities under the SDFSCA and the Clery Act.

45. On or about December 5, 2012, a USDE representative met with Mr.

Crawley.


11

46. In or about the week of December 10, 2012, the USDE requested

documentary information from Mr. Crawley, including but not limited to HACCs

two most recent biennial reviews under the SDFSCA.

47. Mr. Crawley cooperated with the USDE and provided documentation

regarding HACCs Program and the 2011 biennial review, among other

information.

48. The USDE additionally asked Mr. Crawley to produce the biennial review

and report that preceded HACCs 2011 review (the USDE Supplemental

Request).

Mr. Crawley Reports Concerns Regarding HACCs Past Non-Compliance withSDFSCA, Improper Receipt of Federal Financial Assistance and/or False

Representations Regarding SDFSCA Compliance49. Upon receiving the USDE Supplemental Request, Mr. Crawley advised his

direct supervisor at the time, Lisa Sanford, then HACCs Chief of Human

Resources, about certain concerns, including that HACC had been non-compliant

with SDFSCA prior to the 2009 establishment of the Program, that HACC may

have improperly received federal financial assistance prior to establishing the

Program, that HACC may have falsely represented in one or more official

documents prior to establishing the Program that HACC was in compliance with

SDFSCA, and that such non-compliance and/or false representations put HACC at

risk of forfeiture of federal financial assistance.


12

50. Mr. Crawley advised Ms. Sanford that HACC had no biennial reviews of a

drug and alcohol abuse and prevention program prior to 2011 and that he would

have to truthfully disclose this to the USDE representatives conducting the Audit.

51. Ms. Sanford agreed with Mr. Crawleys concerns and his intent to truthfully

disclose to the USDE representatives conducting the Audit that HACC had no

biennial review of a drug and alcohol abuse and prevention program prior to 2011.

52. Ms. Sanford informed Defendant Sygielski, her direct supervisor, of the

information as described in paragraphs 49 and 50.

53. On information and belief, Defendant Sygielski asked Ms. Sanford if Mr.

Crawley had searched for a biennial review earlier than 2009 and whether Mr.

Crawley was sure that one did not exist.

54. Ms. Sanford referred Defendant Sygielskis questions to Mr. Crawley, who

confirmed to Ms. Sanford that HACC neither established a drug and alcohol abuse

and prevention program prior to 2009 nor conducted a biennial review of such

program prior to 2011.

55. Ms. Sanford relayed to Defendant Sygielski Mr. Crawleys certainty that

HACC had neither established a drug and alcohol abuse and prevention program

prior to 2009 nor conducted a biennial review of such program prior to 2011.


13

Mr. Crawley Provides Truthful Information in Response to the United StatesDepartment of Educations Audit

56. As Mr. Crawley expected, on or around December 18, 2012, the USDE

requested HACCs previous biennial review of the Program.

57. Mr. Crawley informed the USDE by email on or about December 19, 2012

that, to his knowledge, the 2011 biennial review is the only such review to date and

that a previous review does not exist; a true and correct copy of said email is

attached as Exhibit A.

58. On or around December 18, 2012, Mr. Crawley advised Defendant Sygielski

by email that he informed the USDE that the 2011 biennial review is the only such

review of HACCs drug and alcohol abuse and prevention policy to date and that

no previous review exists.

59. Defendant Sygielski sent an email to Mr. Crawley and Ms. Sanford saying,

Please let me know what we need to do to alleviate your concerns (which you

mention twice) or those of the Department of Education. [Emphasis in original]; a

true and correct copy of said email is attached as Exhibit B.

60. Mr. Crawley concluded from Defendant Sygielskis emphasis on the words

to do (in bold and underline) that he was intending that Mr. Crawley create or

cause the creation of a false report of a prior review of the drug and alcohol abuse

and prevention program.


14

61. Mr. Crawley discussed his concern with Ms. Sanford that Defendant

Sygielskis email intended that Mr. Crawley create or cause the creation of a false

report.

62. Ms. Sanford concurred with Mr. Crawleys concern that Defendant

Sygielskis email intended that Mr. Crawley create or cause the creation of a false

report.

Mr. Crawley Refuses to Create or Cause the Creation of a False Report63. Despite Defendant Sygielskis December 20 email, Mr. Crawley did not

create or cause the creation of a false report regarding the drug and alcohol abuse

and prevention program.

64. On December 21, 2012, Mr. Crawley informed Defendant Sygielski via

email that the only action he was taking with regard to the USDE request was to

wait for the USDE response to his truthful disclosure that no other records existed

regarding a review of the drug and alcohol abuse and prevention policy; a true and

correct copy of said email is attached as Exhibit C.

65. At the close of business on December 21, 2012, HACC went on break.

66. HACC reopened for business on January 2, 2013.

Defendants Sygielski and Heinle Retaliate Against Mr. Crawley


15

67. On or about February 15, 2013, Lisa Sanford, Mr. Crawleys immediate

supervisor, was removed by Defendant Sygielski from her position with HACC as

Chief Human Resources Officer; Defendant Sygielski thereafter assigned

Defendant Heinle as Interim Chief Human Resources Officer.

68. On information and belief, a reason why Defendant Sygielski removed Ms.

Sanford as Chief Human Resources Officer was either Mr. Crawleys truthful

disclosure to the USDE that no other records existed regarding a review of the drug

and alcohol abuse and prevention policy and/or Ms. Sanfords refusal to make or

cause the making of an untruthful disclosure regarding a review of said policy.

69. In said interim position, Defendant Heinle thereby became Mr. Crawleys

direct supervisor.

70. Defendants Sygielski and Heinle thereafter targeted Mr. Crawley in

retaliation for his truthful disclosure to the USDE that no other review existed of a

drug and alcohol abuse and prevention policy.

71. Defendant Sygielski imposed demands on Mr. Crawley through repetitive

emails making often-unreasonable demands, scattered with demeaning and snide

remarks about Mr. Crawley and his job security.

72. For example, on February 28, 2013, at 5:50 P.M., Defendant Sygielski sent

Mr. Crawley an email with 13 questions:


16

a. The lead sentence of said email formatted the words three, single

sentence bullet points in bold, underline and used a font

approximately twice the size of the remainder of the email, an

unprofessional, inappropriate, childish and abusive way for a higher

education professional to communicate.

b. Further the email directed Mr. Crawley to answer the 13 questions by

the end of [Mr. Crawleys] day, today, an absurd demand to make of

someone at 5:50 P.M.

c. A true and correct copy of the email is attached as Exhibit D.

73. Also on February 28, 2013, at 5:59 PM, , nine minutes after he sent the

email referenced in paragraph 72, above, Defendant Sygielski sent Mr. Crawley an

email:

a. The email requested Mr. Crawley to provide seven pieces of

information, the last of which was Name of your successor in case

you won the lottery, tomorrow [sic].

b. A true and correct copy of the email is attached as Exhibit E.

74. After Mr. Crawley provided truthful information to the USDE, Defendants

Sygielski and Heinle have attempted to make Mr. Crawley a scapegoat for several

of HACCs recent public embarrassments.


17

75. On or about March 20, 2013, Mr. Crawley, through his counsel, sent a letter

to Defendant Sygielski demanding that harassment and retaliation directed at Mr.

Crawley be stopped and that no adverse action be taken against Mr. Crawley; a true

and correct copy of the letter is attached as Exhibit F.

76. On information and belief, Defendant Sygielski received the letter referred

to in Paragraph 75 on March 20, 2013.

77. After Mr. Crawley sent the letter to Defendant Sygielski referred to in

Paragraph 75, Defendants Sygielski and/or Heinle caused the following retaliatory

and adverse employment actions to be taken against Mr. Crawley:

a. On March 26, 2013, Defendants removed Mr. Crawley from the

position and duties of Director of Public Safety and removed Mr.

Crawley from supervising the three employees who previously

reported directly to him in his position as Director of Public Safety;

b. Since March 26, 2013, Defendants have not permitted Mr. Crawley to

carry out any of the duties of his position as Director of Public Safety;

c. Since March 26, 2013, on information and belief, Defendants have

directed other employees in HACCs security operation to have no

contact with Mr. Crawley;


18

d. Since March 26, 2013, Defendants have not advised Mr. Crawley of

the title, if any, of his present position;

e. Since March 26, 2013, Defendants have not advised Mr. Crawley of

the specific tasks he is to perform, but instead gave him the vague

direction to perform the same tasks he performed in the position he

held prior to becoming Director of Public Safety;

f. The position Mr. Crawley held prior to becoming Director of Public

Safety was Director of Environmental Health and Safety, a position

that was eliminated in 2012 and which, when it existed, was at a lower

level than Director of Public Safety;

g. By Defendants removal of Mr. Crawleys title, their refusal to permit

Mr. Crawley to perform the duties of his title position and their vague

direction that he perform tasks in the position he held prior to his

promotion, as described in subparagraphs b, c, d, e and f, above,

Defendants have effectively demoted Mr. Crawley;

h. Since March 26, 2013, Mr. Crawley has made repeated requests to

Defendants Sygielski and/or Heinle that Mr. Crawley be advised as to

what duties he should conduct and Defendants have refused to so

advise Mr. Crawley;


19

i. Since April 2, 2013, Mr. Crawley has asked Defendants what reasons

justified the direction that he not carry out the duties of Director of

Public Safety, and Defendants have refused to so advise Mr. Crawley;

j. While Defendants purported to direct Mr. Crawley perform tasks

previously performed by the Director of Environmental Health and

Safety, said position was eliminated in 2012, and HACCs budget

eliminated funding for said position as of July 1, 2013;

k. In or about the fall of 2012 HACCs then-Interim Chief Financial

Officer advised Mr. Crawley (in his then-capacity as Director of

Public Safety) that HACCs budget eliminated funding for the

Director of Environmental Health and Safety position as of July 1,

2013, as described in subparagraph j, above;

l. On information and belief, Defendants Sygielski and Heinle knew that

HACCs budget eliminated funding for the Director of Environmental

Health and Safety position as of July 1, 2013;

m. On information and belief, Defendants Sygielski and Heinle knew that

Mr. Crawley was aware that funding for said position was eliminated

and thereby directed Mr. Crawley to perform tasks consistent with a

position that had no funding as of June 30, 2013;


20

n. On and after March 26, 2013, Defendants blocked Mr. Crawleys

access to his work computer;

o. On March 26, 2013, Defendants assigned Mr. Crawleys former

position as Director of Public Safety to an employee whom Mr.

Crawley previously supervised.

p. As of April 3, 2013, Defendants removed Mr. Crawleys access to a

HACC-provided motor vehicle;

78. On April 3, 2013, Defendants relocated Mr. Crawleys work station from a

corner office in a third floor suite of HACCs facility in the City of Harrisburg

known as Penn Center to an office on the second floor in the same facility,

notwithstanding the following:

a. HACCs lease on the Penn Center facility expires in or about

December 2013, and all HACC staff in said facility will be relocated

to the HACC Campus in or about the expiration of the lease;

b. HACC has no plan to occupy the third floor suite that Mr. Crawley is

vacating before its lease expires;

c. When HACCs fiscal officer protested at the expense for relocating

Mr. Crawleys office, Defendants directed Mr. Crawley to move his

own files from the third floor to the second floor;


21

d. On information and belief, HACC has not allocated any space for the

position currently held by Mr. Crawley after HACC vacates the Penn

Center facility;

e. Defendants lacked a reasonable business objective for relocating Mr.

Crawleys office;

f. Defendants relocated Mr. Crawleys office intending to harass, annoy

or otherwise discriminate against Mr. Crawley;

g. Defendants orchestrated the actions described above to further

retaliate against Mr. Crawley for providing truthful information to the

USDE.

79. On or about April 12, 2013, Mr. Crawley learned of an alleged student-on-

student sexual assault on the HACC Harrisburg campus:

a. Mr. Crawley, as HACCs Title IX Coordinator, is responsible for

conducting an investigation of an alleged sexual assault, ensuring

compliance with Title IX, and complying with its reporting and

notification requirements;

b. On April 12, 2013, Mr. Crawley sent an email to Defendants Sygielski

and Heinle reminding them that he, as Title IX Coordinator, had


22

certain reporting obligations in light of such an alleged assault, and

inquired whether that responsibility was also removed from him;

c. Defendants refused to timely respond to Mr. Crawleys inquiry;

d. Although Mr. Crawley remains HACCs Title IX Coordinator,

Defendants have compromised his ability to carry out this function by

directing security personnel to have no contact with Mr. Crawley, as

alleged in paragraph 77.c, above.

e. Defendants prevented Mr. Crawley from meeting his obligations

under Title IX to further retaliate against Mr. Crawley for providing

truthful information to the USDE.

80. On information and belief, Defendants are retaliating and discriminating

against Mr. Crawley for his truthful disclosure to the USDE that no other records

existed regarding a review of HACCs drug and alcohol abuse and prevention

policy.

81. On information and belief, Defendants intend to terminate Mr. Crawleys

employment with HACC for truthfully disclosing to the USDE that no other

records existed regarding a review of HACCs drug and alcohol abuse and

prevention policy.


23

COUNT IVIOLATION OF THE FALSE CLAIMS ACT

Crawley v. HACC and Sygielski and Heinle (in their individual and officialcapacities)

82. Paragraphs 1 through 81 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully

set forth at length.

83. Mr. Crawley brings this claim under the whistleblower provisions of the

False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729-3733.

84. Mr. Crawley reported in good faith his belief that HACC had been non-

compliant with SDFSCA prior to the 2009.

85. Mr. Crawley reported in good faith his belief that HACC may have

improperly received federal financial assistance prior to establishing the Program.

86. Mr. Crawley reported in good faith his belief that HACC may have falsely

represented in one or more official documents prior to establishing the Program

that HACC was in compliance with SDFSCA.

87. Mr. Crawley reported in good faith his belief that HACC had been non-

compliant with SDFSCA prior to 2009 and that such non-compliance and/or false

representations put HACC at risk of forfeiture of federal financial assistance.

88. Mr. Crawley reported in good faith that HACC had no biennial reviews of a

drug and alcohol abuse and prevention program prior to 2011.


24

89. Mr. Crawleys reports as described in Paragraphs 84 through 88 above,

constitute activity protected under the False Claims Act.

90. As a result of Mr. Crawleys reports, Defendants imposed the above-

mentioned retaliatory, adverse employment actions against Mr. Crawley in

violation of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3730(h), relating to a

whistleblowers right to relief and protection from retaliatory actions.

91. Defendants are liable to Mr. Crawley for their violations of the False Claims

Act, 31 U.S.C. 3730(h)(1), which prohibits the discharge, demotion, harassment

or discrimination against a person who took lawful acts to stop a violation of the

False Claims Act.

92. Defendants are liable to Mr. Crawley for all damages, and other legal and

equitable remedies including costs, reasonable attorneys fees and all other

remedies and enforcement available to Crawley under 31 U.S.C. 3730(h)(2).

93. Crawley is entitled to reinstatement with the same seniority status that he

possessed before the discriminatory actions took place in accordance with 31

U.S.C. 3730(h)(2).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Todd A. Crawley requests this Honorable Court to

enter judgment against all Defendants, jointly and severally, together with interest,

costs and reasonable attorney fees and such other relief that this Court deems just.


25

COUNT IIVIOLATION OF THE PENNSYLVANIA WHISTLEBLOWER LAWCrawley v. HACC, Sygielski and Heinle in their individual and official

capacities

94. Paragraphs 1 through 93 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully

set forth at length.

95. Mr. Crawley has reported waste or wrongdoing within the meaning of the

Whistleblower Law.

96. Defendants are Employers within the meaning of the Whistleblower Law.

97. Defendants actions against Mr. Crawley violated Section 3 of the

Whistleblower Law, 43 P.S. 1423.

98. Defendants are liable to Mr. Crawley for all damages, and other legal and

equitable remedies including costs, reasonable attorneys fees and all other

remedies and enforcement available to Crawley under Sections 4 and 5 of the

Whistleblower Law, 43 P.S. 1424-1425.

99. Defendants should be subjected by the Court to all penalties, civil fines and

suspensions as provided under Section 6 of the Whistleblower Law, 43 P.S. 1426.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Todd A. Crawley requests this Honorable Court to

enter judgment in his favor and against all Defendants, jointly and severally, together


26

with interest, costs and reasonable attorney fees and such other relief that this Court

deems just.

TRIAL BY JURY

100. Mr. Crawley demands a jury trial for all issues triable before a jury.

Respectfully Submitted,

CLARK & KREVSKY, LLC

Dated: June 24, 2013____ By: /s/ Frank P. Clark_______Frank P. ClarkP.O. Box 1254Camp Hill, PA 17001-1254(717) 731-8600Attorney I.D. No. 35443Attorney for Plaintiff


Documents

Todd Crawley lawsuit