Kevin Ryan's Website said:
To help ensure this accountability, I've filed a lawsuit against UL for wrongful termination. My attorneys and I hope to gain more information about UL’s role in the testing of the WTC steel assemblies, and any other involvement UL has had with the WTC towers or the NIST investigation. Since this lawsuit represents a critical need for information about public safety, we invite the public to contribute to our legal defense fund.
So, from a legal perspective, there's a lot of nonsense here and a little possible non-nonsense. First, Ryan doesn't really explain the basis of his suit or give links to any legal documents filed or unfiled. My attempts to find any confirmation online from either the courts of St. Joseph County, Indiana or the federal court for the Northern District of Indiana came to nothing - neither have their court records online (maybe some lawyer with a PACER ID could double-check with the feds). The bottom line is, most of what I'm about to say is a guess based on Ryan's statements; I can't even say for sure that a suit has been filed.
Whether a state is an at-will state or not, an empoyee with an employment contract may only be fired in accordance with that contract. Also, whistleblower statutes may protect even those employees who do not have a contract. A contract need not be signed by the employee - a personnel manual or written company policies may create a contract. UL is the type of organization that is likely to have some sort of contractual duty only to fire an employee like Ryan for cause.
Did UL have cause? I have no idea. It appears that Ryan was fired for implying that his personal beliefs represented those of the company. That would, if true, certainly appear to be sufficient cause.
But what about Ryan's stated reason for filing the suit? There is almost no chance that a wrongful termination suit would allow Ryan to gain any information about "UL’s role in the testing of the WTC steel assemblies, and any other involvement UL has had with the WTC towers or the NIST investigation." These issues have nothing whatsoever to do with the reason he was fired. He was fired for appearing to speak for the company on matters he was not authorized to. Whether anything he said was true or untrue is not relevant. His attempts to discover these items should not succeed.
As to what type of lawyer would take the case - It's possible that the wrongful termination claim has enough objective validity to pass the smell test. And it's likely that Ryan's lawyer took the case not caring a damn about 9/11 or any of Ryan's motives, just the wrongful termination aspect. I generally don't care what motivates my clients - if I think they can win under the law, I represent them. It is also possible that the lawyer is a true believer, but this is unlikely. And, last, it is possible that there is no lawyer, that there is no case and that Ryan is just making it all up.
