Jump to Navigation

Employer Retaliation & Whistleblowers

Employer Retaliation and Whistleblowing

When an employee suffers adverse treatment after reporting discrimination, harassment or illegal activities of an employer, he or she may be pursue a retaliation or whistleblower action. The attorneys at Martin D. Haverly, Attorney at Law, are experienced employment lawyers focused on the rights of our clients involved in retaliation and whistleblower actions. As your attorneys, we will take the time to understand your immediate concerns and devise a strategic response to protect your rights, your reputation and the outcome of your case.

Call (302) 529-0121 today or contact us by e-mail for an initial consultation to discuss your case. We offer experienced, strategic and compassionate legal advocacy focused on your rights and results.

Retaliation and Whistleblower Actions

Retaliation and whistleblower actions are similar, as they both involve the treatment of an employee after reporting wrongful or illegal conduct. Retaliation cases could involve reporting discrimination or harassment. In general, a whistleblower is someone who reports certain illegal conduct of a company supervisor or of a public or government employee or entity. We are experienced in handling a wide range of retaliation and whistleblower actions and can best protect your rights in order to achieve positive results in your case.

Examples of retaliation include:

  • Suffering a demotion or losing a job ( wrongful termination) after reporting wrongdoing
  • Suffering any adverse treatment by an employer or coworkers for reporting discrimination
  • Adverse treatment or response for filing a workers' compensation claim
  • Suffering retaliation because you are a whistleblower, or reported certain wrongdoing of a government employee or of a company supervisor
  • An employer who negatively changes terms of employment to affect the workplace environment or job duties of an employee

Experienced Advocacy in Whistleblowing Cases

With regards to whistleblowers, there is state, federal and constitutional law that governs specific whistleblowing scenarios. We are experienced in handling complex whistleblowing action cases involving cooked accounting books, safety and health violations, illegal conduct, and reporting issues involving public good or campaign violations.

We understand that these cases can be highly sensitive, affecting an individual's career, reputation and relationships with colleagues and government officials. Our priority is to protect your interests, legal and otherwise, with known strategies and effective advocacy.

Have You Experienced Retaliation in the Workplace? Contact Us Today

Call (302) 529-0121 or contact our office by e-mail to schedule an initial consultation to discuss your case. We are conveniently located safely in the Wilmington suburbs at Lancaster Pike (Rte. 48) and Centre Road (Rte. 141).

View Cases

  • Sheridan v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 100 F.3d 1061 (3rd Cir. 1996) (en banc) (Plaintiff's jury verdict and the "pretext only" paradigm for proof of intentional discrimination established).
  • Hawkins v. Division of State Police, et al., C.A. No. 99-297-SLR (Religious discrimination case which successfully obtained an offer of judgment and caused the State to stop using the MMPI-1.
  • Miller v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., C. A. No. 01-827-JJF (D.Del. 2003) (Race Discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
  • Panaro v. J.C. Penny, Inc., C.A. 01C-02-010 JOH, 2002 WL 130692 (Del. Super. 2002)(In a personal injury case, admission into evidence of direct examination of deceased deponent/plaintiff does not.
  • Price, et al. v. L. Aaron Chaffinch, et al., C.A. No. 04-956-GMS, 2006 WL 1313178 (D.Del. 2006) (First Amendment Retaliation, Petitions Clause and Defamation Claims survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
  • Reyes v. Freebery, 141 Fed. Appx. 49 (3d Cir. 2005) (per curiam) remanding to District Court to explain its restrictions on the public's right to access to judicial records and counsel's First Amendment.
  • Underwood v. Sear Roebuck and Co., 343 F.Supp.2d 259 (D.Del. 2004) (Gender discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgment).
  • Shotzberger v. State of Delaware Dept. Of Correction, 2004 WL 758354 (D.Del. Jan. 30, 2004) (Gender discrimination claim survived Motion for Summary Judgement).
  • Stull v. Thomas S. Neuberger, P.A., 2003 WL 21481016 (Del. Super. Febr. 28, 2003) (Effect of Delaware accord and satisfaction law on a contract for legal services).
View More Cases

Case Evaluation Form

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


Privacy Policy