{"id":324,"date":"2012-10-16T19:26:24","date_gmt":"2012-10-16T23:26:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/?p=324"},"modified":"2013-09-20T19:26:48","modified_gmt":"2013-09-20T23:26:48","slug":"mcqueary-files-whistleblower-defamation-and-misrepresentation-lawsuit-against-penn-state","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/2012\/10\/16\/mcqueary-files-whistleblower-defamation-and-misrepresentation-lawsuit-against-penn-state\/","title":{"rendered":"McQueary Files Whistleblower, Defamation, and Misrepresentation Lawsuit against Penn State"},"content":{"rendered":"<figure id=\"attachment_325\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-325\" style=\"width: 300px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><a href=\"http:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/09\/PSU_McQuery.png\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-medium wp-image-325\" alt=\"Gene J. Puskar\/Associated-Press\" src=\"http:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/09\/PSU_McQuery-300x171.png\" width=\"300\" height=\"171\" srcset=\"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/09\/PSU_McQuery-300x171.png 300w, https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/09\/PSU_McQuery.png 938w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><\/a><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-325\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Gene J. Puskar\/Associated-Press<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">by: Amy Coleman, Staff Writer<\/p>\n<div>The quiet Happy Valley is once again polarized and Mike McQueary is in the center of it all.\u00a0 This time he is the plaintiff.\u00a0 The well-known whistleblower of the Jerry Sandusky scandal is now invoking the PA Whistleblower Protection Laws as justification for a 19-page civil action with the Centre County Court of Common Pleas on October 3<sup>rd<\/sup>.<\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<div>The particulars of the claim are three suits: violation of the Whistleblower statute, defamation of character, and misrepresentation.\u00a0 In essence, McQueary views that he was singled out by the previous administration by not being given treatment similar to other Assistant Football Coaches at the time.\u00a0 Also, his character was defamed when then-University President Spanier made oral and written statements insinuating that McQueary was lying about \u2018blowing the whistle\u2019 on Sandusky.\u00a0 And, Athletics Director Curly and Senior VP Schultz misrepresented that they would make appropriate action so that McQueary would rely upon these statements and not take further action to stop Sandusky.<\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<div>Although the reaction by the Penn State community has yet to be fully understood, it is difficult to imagine a more brow-beaten group, should the court impose monetary sanctions on the University. \u00a0More importantly, is it possible that any court-imposed sanctions could further depress the Penn State nation after the NCAA-sanctions?<\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<div>The NCAA imposed sanctions upon Penn State, due to its involvement in the Sandusky Scandal.\u00a0 These include a 4-year ban on bowl games, 40 initial athletic scholarships lost over 4 years, a $60 million fine, vacating all 1998-2011 victories (dethroning Joe Paterno for most all time victories in major college football), and 5 years\u2019 probation, according to USAToday.<\/p>\n<div><\/div>\n<div>At 37, Mike McQueary has spent most of his life as a Nittany Lion, at quarterback 1994-1997, Graduate Assistant Coach 2000-2002, Football Administrative Assistant in 2003, and then Wide Receiver Assistant Head Coach and Recruiting Coordinator until he was put on Administrative leave, according to the Penn State Athletics website. \u00a0Yet, many students and alumni viewed McQueary as not doing enough in the Sandusky scandal.\u00a0 On November 10, 2011, Andersen Cooper 360\u00b0 held a poll asking if McQueary should be allowed to coach because he did not do enough.\u00a0 An overwhelming 86.19% of those who responded said \u201cNo.\u201d<\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<div>Was McQueary\u2019s biggest mistake not telling someone else? \u00a0Hindsight is 20\/20, but perhaps his biggest mistake was driving the bus that would bring the great \u201cJoe Pa\u201d down.\u00a0 And that is a wound that will probably never heal, even after the NCAA sanctions and fines are long forgotten. \u00a0In fact, a blog was published on October 08, 2012, several months after any such commentary on the Sandusky trial, alleging that McQueary perjured himself when he testified about what he saw that night in the locker rooms (Read the <a href=\"http:\/\/notpsu.blogspot.com\/2012\/10\/interactive-participatory-blogging-with.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow\">blog<\/a>).\u00a0 Of course, this blog does not present that Sandusky was innocent or that he was not in fact in the locker room that night with a child.\u00a0 Instead, it outlines the difference between hearing a sexual act in the showers and seeing it, no doubt as an attempt to add skepticism as to what McQueary actually told Paterno so as to justify Paterno\u2019s actions.\u00a0 This blog is only one of many out there seeking to avenge Paterno\u2019s legacy.<\/div>\n<div><\/div>\n<div>In the end, it is seriously doubtful that McQueary will be able to come back from this in the sports world, let alone the small Penn State community which has been closing ranks since a year ago when this scandal first broke.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>by: Amy Coleman, Staff Writer The quiet Happy Valley is once again polarized and Mike McQueary is in the center of it all.\u00a0 This time he is the plaintiff.\u00a0 The well-known whistleblower of the Jerry Sandusky scandal is now invoking the PA Whistleblower Protection Laws as justification for a 19-page [\u2026] <\/p>\n<div class=\"clear\"><\/div>\n<p><a class=\"more_link clearfix\" href=\"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/2012\/10\/16\/mcqueary-files-whistleblower-defamation-and-misrepresentation-lawsuit-against-penn-state\/\" rel=\"nofollow\">Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":325,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-324","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-juris-blog","category-posts"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/324","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=324"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/324\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":326,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/324\/revisions\/326"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/325"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=324"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=324"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=324"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}