McQueary attorneys respond to Penn State motions in whistle-blower suit
BELLEFONTE — The attorneys for former Penn State assistant football coach Mike McQueary filed a legal document on Friday in support of arguments they will make at an upcoming hearing over his whistle-blower lawsuit against the university.
McQueary's lawyers want an out-of-county judge to overrule Penn State's lawyers' objections to his lawsuit. Penn State is contesting McQueary's claims and the lawyers want the lawsuit thrown out.
The lawyers for both sides will give oral arguments before Senior Judge Thomas Gavin of Chester County on March 18 at the Centre County Courthouse.
McQueary's lawyers contend that a statement ex-Penn State President Graham Spanier made in November 2011 in support of former university leaders Tim Curley and Gary Schultz was defamatory. They also sued on the grounds that Curley and Schultz misrepresented how they would respond to McQueary's report in 2001 when he saw Jerry Sandusky in a shower with a young boy.
Penn State's lawyers said in court papers last month that McQueary's lawsuit was “devoid” of legal merit and asked the judge to dismiss the suit. The lawyers said Spanier's statement was not defamatory and that what Curley and Schultz told McQueary was not a misrepresentation.
McQueary's contract was not renewed when it expired last summer, and the former assistant sued in October, seeking $4 million in lost wages and other punitive damages on the grounds he was defamed and let go because he cooperated with authorities investigating Sandusky.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.