Prior administrative determination in favor of employer does not necessarily preclude claim that discipline was motivated by retaliatory animus for plaintiff's protected activity.

The defendant appealed the denial of their motion for summary judgment premised upon the decisions in their favor in two prior Civil Service Commission hearings. In those hearings, the Civil Service Commission determined that the plaintiff's conduct justified discipline. In upholding the trial court's Order, the Appellate Court held that the prior determinations did not foreclose the plaintiff from attempting to show that the discipline was the result of retaliatory animus because the plaintiff engaged in whistle-blowing activities since the Commission's findings did not take into account the motivation or intent for instituting the disciplinary actions. The fact that the Commission found that the plaintiff's conduct warranted discipline did not foreclose this analysis.

Case Law Alert - 4th Qtr 2010