ShareThis Page
Pennsylvania

Ex-assistant coach Mike McQueary ends whistleblower lawsuit against Penn State

| Tuesday, Nov. 7, 2017, 8:09 a.m.
In this Oct. 17, 2016, photo, former Penn State University assistant football coach Mike McQueary leaves the Centre County Courthouse Annex for lunch in Bellefonte, Pa. McQueary was awarded $7.3 million in damages in his defamation trial on Thursday, Oct. 27, 2016.
In this Oct. 17, 2016, photo, former Penn State University assistant football coach Mike McQueary leaves the Centre County Courthouse Annex for lunch in Bellefonte, Pa. McQueary was awarded $7.3 million in damages in his defamation trial on Thursday, Oct. 27, 2016.

STATE COLLEGE, Pa. — A former Penn State assistant football coach has ended his defamation and whistleblower lawsuit against the university.

Court records show Mike McQueary's attorney filed for the lawsuit to be discontinued and ended with prejudice Friday, meaning the lawsuit cannot be brought back to court.

McQueary filed his lawsuit against the university in 2012 after he lost his job following the firing of former head coach Joe Paterno.

He later testified during the child sex abuse case against the school's former defensive football coach Jerry Sandusky.

McQueary was awarded more than $12 million last year after his civil suit trial. The university had been filing a series of appeals in an attempt to overturn the verdict.

Neither side has disclosed if a settlement has been reached.

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 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.

click me