Public Officers and Employees; Colleges and Universities" whistleblower action — protected activity — sufficiency of complaint
The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the dismissal of the complaint of a former state university employee for retaliatory discharge under the Whistleblower Act is reversed for the reasons stated in the Court of Appeals dissenting opinion that plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to support her claim that she was engaged in a protected activity where she alleged that she was asked to resign because she refused the university chancellor's request to issue a check from the university endowment fund for an option to purchase realty that she knew the university had insufficient funds to exercise and because she reported her objection to the transaction to a university attorney.
PER CURIAM.
For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
REVERSED.