LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 36,711
UL's Motion to Dismiss Kevin Ryan's lawsuit has been granted.
I will send a copy of the document to ~enigma~ for posting at the site he created to host the documents, but here is a brief summary.
The claims alleging a public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine in Indiana (on 7 different bases, which became 14 in his amended complaint) were dismissed wholesale WITH PREJUDICE on the basis that Ryan simply does not come within the very clear precedents established by Indiana law that govern the narrow public policy exception.
The claims alleging "whistleblower" protection for Ryan were dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 15 DAYS, on the basis that:
1) the statute that Ryan attempted to rely upon applies only to wrongdoing by the private employer that relates to the execution of public contracts;
2) nothing in the Ryan complaint inferred any connection to any contract that UL may have had involving NIST or the collapse of the WTC towers, or anything from which it could be inferred that Ryan had any knowledge about how UL executed its contracts;
3) nothing in the letter that Ryan sent to NIST provided the basis for any inference of the existence of any violation of law or misuse of public resources by UL (which is a prerequisite to successfully invoking the 'whistleblower' statute that Ryan sought to rely upon);
4) the whistleblower statute is not aimed at protecting plaintiffs who believe that the conduct of an employer might reveal violations of law or regulation or misuse of public resources, but rather it seeks to protect employees who report that an employer has, in the execution of a public contract, broken the law or misused public resources;
5) Ryan's complaint is not about allegations of misconduct by UL or the misuse of public funds at all, but rather it is about the competency of the investigations following September 11, 2001 and an alleged failure by NIST (and potentially UL) to uncover or consider evidence that other, as yet unknown, conspirators were involved; and
6) the Ryan complaint provided no reasonable basis for inferring that UL broke the law or spent public money for any unallowed purpose, nor did it provide any basis for inferring that Ryan reported any such conduct to either UL or NIST.
In the result, Ryan's letters to UL and to NIST did not allege a violation of federal, state, or local laws or regulations, or a misuse of public resources, regarding UL’s execution of its contract with NIST.
Thus, the claim on this basis was also dismissed, albeit WITHOUT PREJUDICE for 15 DAYS.
However, the court added this, which strikes me as a pretty strong warning to Ryan:
ETA: Here is a link to a previous thread tracking the litigation, for those who are interested.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81508&highlight=Ryan+litigation
I will send a copy of the document to ~enigma~ for posting at the site he created to host the documents, but here is a brief summary.
The claims alleging a public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine in Indiana (on 7 different bases, which became 14 in his amended complaint) were dismissed wholesale WITH PREJUDICE on the basis that Ryan simply does not come within the very clear precedents established by Indiana law that govern the narrow public policy exception.
The claims alleging "whistleblower" protection for Ryan were dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR 15 DAYS, on the basis that:
1) the statute that Ryan attempted to rely upon applies only to wrongdoing by the private employer that relates to the execution of public contracts;
2) nothing in the Ryan complaint inferred any connection to any contract that UL may have had involving NIST or the collapse of the WTC towers, or anything from which it could be inferred that Ryan had any knowledge about how UL executed its contracts;
3) nothing in the letter that Ryan sent to NIST provided the basis for any inference of the existence of any violation of law or misuse of public resources by UL (which is a prerequisite to successfully invoking the 'whistleblower' statute that Ryan sought to rely upon);
4) the whistleblower statute is not aimed at protecting plaintiffs who believe that the conduct of an employer might reveal violations of law or regulation or misuse of public resources, but rather it seeks to protect employees who report that an employer has, in the execution of a public contract, broken the law or misused public resources;
5) Ryan's complaint is not about allegations of misconduct by UL or the misuse of public funds at all, but rather it is about the competency of the investigations following September 11, 2001 and an alleged failure by NIST (and potentially UL) to uncover or consider evidence that other, as yet unknown, conspirators were involved; and
6) the Ryan complaint provided no reasonable basis for inferring that UL broke the law or spent public money for any unallowed purpose, nor did it provide any basis for inferring that Ryan reported any such conduct to either UL or NIST.
In the result, Ryan's letters to UL and to NIST did not allege a violation of federal, state, or local laws or regulations, or a misuse of public resources, regarding UL’s execution of its contract with NIST.
Thus, the claim on this basis was also dismissed, albeit WITHOUT PREJUDICE for 15 DAYS.
However, the court added this, which strikes me as a pretty strong warning to Ryan:
ETA: Here is a link to a previous thread tracking the litigation, for those who are interested.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81508&highlight=Ryan+litigation
Last edited:
