Wastewater Plant Whistleblower Will Not Receive Protection

A wastewater treatment operator who revealed problems at a plant—and was subsequently fired—will not receive whistleblower protection, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled last month.

The court's "decision on Dec. 17 reversed a ruling made by the Fifth District Court of Appeals on July 15, 2013," the Morrow County Sentinel reported.

Donald Lee, who oversaw operations at Cardington Village's water treatment plant, alleges that he was fired for "reporting problems at the [plant], as well as [for] his support of the [an] investigation into illegal disposal of hazardous chemicals into the public water supply by Cardington Yutaka Technologies," the report said.

The village denied those allegations, saying Lee was "fired for insubordination, failure to complete jobs, personal use of village property and taking time off without notice," the report said.

Justice Judith French, who wrote the court's majority opinion, acknowledged Lee revealed vital information. “Lee, who worked at the wastewater treatment plant, was instrumental in uncovering [a] manufacturer’s illegal disposal of hazardous chemicals into the public water supply,” she wrote, per the Sentinel.

Lee notified the Ohio EPA of problems he saw at the wastewater treatment plant. Lee was in conflict with his superiors about how to confront plant problems.

Ohio Supreme Court documents "reveal Lee focused on efforts to repair the $750,000 in damage to the plant caused by the chemical, discussing the problems with Village Administrator Dan Ralley, who was his supervisor. They disagreed about how to repair the equipment. Because the plant could not filter out the glycol, Lee worried that the chemical was entering the Whetstone Creek, which supplies drinking water to water plants downstream. He was also concerned that while waiting to fix the damage, the plant might exceed the limits in its operating permit for discharging sewage," the report said.

The Ohio Supreme Court found Lee did not qualify for legal protections as a whistleblower because he did not comply with a particular section of the Ohio Revised Code.

"Justice French pointed out that an employee must strictly comply with the requirements of the statute to obtain protection as a whistleblower. In this case, she wrote, Lee did not report crimes involving the village or report them in strict compliance with R.C. 4113.52(A)(1) or (2)," the report said.

French wrote in the majority opinion: “Lee’s report of ‘equipment failures’ does not qualify as a report that sufficiently identifies and describes any crimes involving the village, as the statute requires. Lee did not claim the village had violated its permit, and he did not show that the village was knowingly putting glycol into the water supply.”

For more on policy and politics, check out Water Online's Regulations & Legislation Solution Center.