A former union worker who claims to be a whistleblower has appealed the dismissal of his wrongful termination lawsuit to the Missouri Supreme Court.
Jonathan Gould states in his appellate brief that he worked for the St. Louis–Kansas City Carpenters’ Regional Council (CRC) from April 3, 2006 as a business agent and prevailing wage compliance officer until he was terminated on August 12, 2014, and that a contributing factor to the termination was his status as a whistleblower dating back to 2007.
“Gould wasn't doing anything wrong,” said St. Louis attorney Sid Chase. “He is, in fact, a legal whistleblower but the court didn’t like him specifically because much of what he reported as wrongdoing is generally ignored.”
Gould’s attorney Andrew R. Kasnetz and CRC’s director of marketing and public relations Brian Russell declined to comment.
Gould sued in Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis but his complaint was dismissed by both the Circuit Court and the Eastern District of Missouri Court of Appeal.
“Gould ordered an audit of a flooring contractor suspected of fraud and misappropriation of funds, which stemmed from underreporting hours to the Missouri Division of Employment Security, thus resulting in an underpayment of benefits to the CRC,” wrote Kasnetz in Gould's brief. “The contractor failed the audit, which showed a balance due to the CRC of about $13,000.”
Jonathan Gould v. St. Louis-Kansas City Carpenters' Regional Council, et al. is scheduled to be heard before the Missouri Supreme Court remotely on March 30 at 10 a.m.
“This appeal is trying to establish that Jonathan Gould is a whistleblower,” Chase told the St. Louis Record. “The Missouri Supreme Court accepted this case because the attorneys are asking the court to create a new test in Missouri for what is a whistleblower because there have been questions as to whether or not there has to be a pre-existing statement in a statute about an improper practice.”
Among the points of error that Kasnetz includes is that his client properly claimed that the union defamed him by calling Gould a liar and by questioning his mental health.
“Gould is saying that he has absolute proof, that he has the expenses and the impropriety, and that the union violated the law,” Chase said in an interview.
The union’s lawyers, however, in their brief argue that the statements Gould alleges to be defamatory are not actionable as a matter of law.
“The individual defendants allegedly made the comments about Gould only after Gould lodged the accusations against the Council officials,” stated CRC’s attornies Gerald Kretmar and Robert D. Blitz in their brief. “Defendants’ alleged statements clearly were made in the context of a heated union dispute over the election for the leadership position of a more than 20,000-member labor organization. The political backdrop of this case is the exact context in which the policies of the federal labor laws leading to protection for freedom of speech are significantly implicated.”