CSU loses round in whistle-blower suit

University could pay out $90,000 to former Forest Service worker

DENVER — The State Personnel Board has upheld an initial finding that Colorado State University violated the state’s Whistle Blower Act over the termination of a U.S. Forest Service employee in June 2001.

CSU has until the end of October to file an appeal.

Michael Rura, a former shop employee at the Forest Service’s Foothills Campus in Fort Collins, alleges years of harassment following internal disclosures that supervisors had ordered him to cover up an environmental hazard –an event that dates back to 1993.

In an Aug. 22 decision, the five-member personnel board remanded the case to Administrative Law Judge Mary McClatchey to determine monetary awards.

The court upheld the payment of back wages, court costs and attorney fees, which amounted to $90,000 as of the end of August, according to Rura’s Denver lawyer Cecelia Serna.

The university has not decided if it will appeal, said Laurence Pendleton, associate general counsel for CSU.

“We are in the process of evaluating our appeal options,” he said. “No final determinations have been made.” Pendleton made no further comment.

If an appeal is filed, it will take up to nine months after the filing before the matter can be heard before the Colorado Court of Appeals.

According to the initial findings of fact, a shop supervisor in 1993 ordered Rura and another employee to dig up a rusty, leaking, 500-gallon underground storage tank that held spent petroleum.

Rura and his co-worker were told to crush the tank and bury it in a different location. They were then ordered to take a clean tank, put some oil into it and bury it in yet another location.

A year later, when a government inspection agency checked the replacement tank, no leaks or contamination was found. At that point Rura said he realized he had been ordered to cover up an environmental hazard.

In the initial hearing, the administrative law judge found that Rura’s 1996 disclosure to State Forest Service Director James Hubbard, and his 1997 disclosure to the new shop supervisor, Greg Sundstrom, met the disclosure requirements necessary to be protected by the State Employee Protection Act, known as the Whistle Blower Act.

The initial ruling found that, following his disclosures, Rura was subjected to undue harassment from his supervisor, culminating in Rura’s termination, which was referred to as “& a shocking violation and an act of retaliation against the employee. &”

Serna said the university’s appeal is based on the interpretation of the State Employee Protection Act. “They want to limit the scope; we argue the scope is broader,” she said.

Rura also plans to file civil suits against the Forest Service, Sundstrom and Hubbard, based on a violation of First Amendment rights.

on Facebook on LinkedIn