This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P was employed by D from 1979 to 1986. In 1983, he became an inspector in the quality assurance department with responsibility for inspecting shipping documents and test reports accompanying incoming steel purchased by D. P discovered what he believed to be flaws in D's quality assurance process. He feared that these practices were contrary to provisions in D's contracts with the United States Navy. On several occasions, P called the suspected problem to the attention of his supervisors as well as Navy inspectors on-site at D. P received his last salary increase in January of 1984. Evaluations of his job performance by his supervisors went from good to increasingly critical of his attitude and ability to work with others as a result of numerous complaints that his supervisors received about his performance. P was counseled about his attitude and performance more than once and was given a written warning in January 1986. Other employees had to be assigned to help him get his work done. On September 12, 1986, D discharged P for deliberately restricting output and creating a nuisance. P filed a complaint alleging breach of employment contract and reprisal in violation of the Whistleblowers' Protection Act. P later added counts of wrongful discharge and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court granted D's motion for summary judgment on all counts but the whistle-blower count and eventually granted D's motion to strike on that count.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.