Javitz, D. v. Luzerne Co., et al - No. (Granted) (petitions for allowance of appeal)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT DONNA DAVIS JAVITZ, Petitioner v. LUZERNE COUNTY, ROBERT LAWTON, AND DAVID PARSNIK, Respondents : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 480 MAL 2021 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 16th day of November, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are: (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 Golashevsky v. Department of Environmental Protection, 720 A.2d 757, 759 (Pa. 1998) and instead determined that in order to establish a prima facie case under the Whistleblower Law a litigant must establish causation with direct evidence proving (1) the County directly threatened [Petitioner] with adverse employment action for filing a report or (2) specifically directed [Petitioner] not to file the report, in effect nullifying the Whistleblower Law? (2) Did the Commonwealth Court err in entering an order dismissing this appeal by limiting its finding of facts and misapplying the law established by the Supreme Court?
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
