In the early days of the 2014 football season, a representative from Nike entered the Penn State athletic trainer's office and confronted the team's two doctors and head trainer. The representative presented a list of players, including the star quarterback, whose socks and shoes had been taped over to help stabilize previous injuries. This taping covered the Nike swoosh, and the representative demanded that it be stopped.
This incident was just one of many that troubled Scott Lynch, the head team doctor. He felt that the coach, James Franklin, was interfering with medical decisions and putting the athletes at risk. Lynch complained to his supervisors about the coach's meddling, but ultimately, he was removed from his position. In response, Lynch filed a lawsuit.
The lawsuit alleged that Penn State had violated the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law by retaliating against Lynch for reporting the coach's misconduct. The lawsuit also claimed that Penn State had breached its contract with Lynch by firing him without cause.
In 2019, a jury found in favor of Lynch on both claims. The jury awarded Lynch $7.5 million in damages, including $5 million for emotional distress. The jury also found that Penn State had acted with malice, which allowed Lynch to recover an additional $2.5 million in punitive damages.
Penn State appealed the verdict, but the Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld the jury's decision in 2021. The court found that there was ample evidence to support the jury's finding that Penn State had violated the Whistleblower Law and breached its contract with Lynch. The court also upheld the jury's award of damages, including the punitive damages.
The case of Scott Lynch v. Penn State University is a significant victory for whistleblowers and for the protection of athletes. The case sends a clear message that coaches and administrators cannot retaliate against medical professionals who report misconduct that puts athletes at risk.
5 Comments
BuggaBoom
“When institutions retaliate against those trying to help, it undermines trust in the system. Proud to see the truth come out in this case.”
Loubianka
“The ruling reinforces that ethical decisions should trump commercial interests. I support every step taken to safeguard athlete health.”
Katchuka
“This case is proof that financial interests cannot override the health and safety of players. Justice was rightly served.”
Noir Black
“Good on Lynch for speaking out! No coach or administrator should be allowed to compromise player safety because of brand issues.”
BuggaBoom
“It feels like they’re using the case to attack the coach and the institution, without presenting all sides of the story.”