Former administrator alleges Bloomsburg University fired him after raising fee concerns

The complaint alleges that he discovered a significant portion of student technology fees had been, in its words, “illegally transferred” to the state system instead of being spent locally on technology. The filing says that when he raised the issue with the university president, he was told the matter was already known but that he should not discuss it and should instead resolve it with the chief financial officer.

The complaint also describes growing friction with the university president. It alleges that after the plaintiff met with a technology vendor about problems with the project, the president confronted him, asking, “What the hell happened yesterday?” and telling him, “The chancellor wants me to fire you.” The filing says the president went on to criticize the plaintiff’s handling of project spending, at one point mockingly calling a campus wireless project the plaintiff’s “Maserati project” and brushing aside the plaintiff’s response that an outside consultant had approved it two years earlier.

The filing says the plaintiff was told a new faculty position was being created for him for fall 2024. Instead, the complaint alleges, on or about July 30, 2024 a vice president terminated his employment – at the direction of the president and the system chancellor – without giving him the hearing the filing says was required under Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, the 1985 US Supreme Court decision addressing the process public employees are generally due before dismissal.

The complaint describes the plaintiff as a “whistleblower” under Pennsylvania’s Whistleblower Law who reported “wrongdoing” and “waste.” Across seven counts, it alleges violations of due process and the First Amendment under 42 U.S.C. §1983, retaliation under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law, civil conspiracy, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiff seeks damages in excess of $75,000, along with punitive damages, front and back pay, and attorney’s fees.

The claims rest on issues public-sector HR functions encounter regularly: whether an employee with a property interest in their position received the process due before termination, and whether an adverse decision followed a protected disclosure closely enough to support a retaliation claim.