Background
[J-46-2026] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT TODD, C.J., DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, BROBSON, McCAFFERY, JJ. ALBERT ADAMS, JR., : No. 4 WAP 2025 : Appellant : Appeal from the Order entered : December 27, 2024, of the : Commonwealth Court at No. 563 v. : MD 2017. : : SUBMITTED: March 26, 2026 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, : : Appellee : OPINION JUSTICE McCAFFERY DECIDED: JULY 21, 2026 In this direct appeal, we consider whether the Commonwealth Court erred by granting summary relief in favor of Appellee, the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General (the OAG), regarding Appellant’s, Albert Adams, Jr.’s, claim under Pennsylvania’s Whistleblower Law (the Whistleblower Law).1 The Commonwealth Court determined that Adams failed to place evidence in the record capable of establishing that any adverse employment action taken by the OAG was caused by his good faith report of sexual and racial harassment of an intern by a coworker. We conclude the Commonwealth Court erred. Specifically, we hold that Adams provided sufficient evidence demonstrating a causal link between the OAG’s adverse employment actions and his good faith report.
background, in February 2022, Agent Page completed the standard annual performance evaluation form for Adams, and in his original evaluation, Agent Page’s overall performance rating for Adams was “outstanding.” See Michael Page Deposition, 9/13/2022, at 36-37 (italics omitted). After receiving Agent Page’s initial evaluation, Agent Brandt told him that he disagreed with Adams’ overall rating of “outstanding” and asked Agent Page to talk with two OAG attorneys who worked with Adams. Agent Page met with the two attorneys, and neither objected to his assessment of Adams. Furthermore, the two attorneys said nothing that changed Agent Page’s opinion as to Adams’ performance. According to Adams, Agent Page eventually dropped his overall rating to “commendable” only “because Agent Brandt would not accept the evaluation with the overall rating of ‘outstanding’ and Agent Brandt had [the] final say.” Brief in Support of Adams’ Opposition to the OAG’s Application for Summary Relief at 14-15 (italics and citation omitted). Lastly, Adams observed that Agent Page testified he had “prepared approximately forty or fifty performance evaluations and this [was] the only time a supervisor ha[d] ever refused to accept his evaluation.” Id. at 16 (emphasis and citation omitted). 6 Agent Jordan also testified that the 2017 Report “played a role” in Adams not being promoted to Narcotics Agent III position in Fall 2017 and “contributed” to Agent Howe’s decision to not assign Adams to one of the Safe Streets positions.
The Court’s Holding
Conclusion “Some evidence of a connection between the report of wrongdoing and the alleged retaliatory acts” is all the Whistleblower Law demands. Javitz, 293 A.3d at 584 (emphasis and citation omitted). We vacate the Commonwealth Court’s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.20 Chief Justice Todd and Justices Donohue, Dougherty, Wecht, Mundy and Brobson join the opinion. 20 As noted supra at 7 n.7, the Commonwealth Court rejected the OAG’s arguments that the 2017 Report was not a “good faith” report. However, the Court did not respond to the OAG’s argument that, under the Whistleblower Law, the 2017 Report did not concern a “wrongdoing.” See id. at 22 n.12. On remand, the Commonwealth Court should address the OAG’s remaining issue as to whether Adams established a prima facie case that his good faith report pertained to a “wrongdoing.” [J-46-2026] – 27
The decision applies Pennsylvania law to the issues preserved in this appeal and explains the governing standard in the court’s own terms. The disposition controls the parties’ next steps and supplies guidance for litigants confronting the same procedural or substantive question.
Key Takeaways
- Conclusion “Some evidence of a connection between the report of wrongdoing and the alleged retaliatory acts” is all the Whistleblower Law demands.
- Javitz, 293 A.3d at 584 (emphasis and citation omitted).
- We vacate the Commonwealth Court’s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.20 Chief Justice Todd and Justices Donohue, Dougherty, Wecht, Mundy and Brobson join the opinion. 20 As noted supra at 7 n.7, the Commonwealth Court rejected the OAG’s arguments that the 2017 Report was not a “good faith” report.
Why It Matters
We vacate the Commonwealth Court’s order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.20… Pennsylvania practitioners should read the ruling with particular attention to the court’s treatment of preservation, the applicable standard, and the remedy. Those points will shape how comparable claims are framed in trial courts and reviewed on appeal.