Uploaded: 2022NOV17 08:39 Filed By:Bar# 75488 TSTRELKA Reference: EF-112844

E-Filed: 2022NOV17 LYNCHBURG CC GSHEEHAN at 2022NOV17 09:31 CL22001035-00

VIRGINIA:
CITY OF LYNCHBURG CIRCUIT COURT

JOHN ROBERT MARKLEY

Plaintiff,

v. Case No:

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY, INC. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendant
Serve:
David M. Corry, R/A
1971 University Blvd.,
Liberty University
Lynchburg, Virginia 24515

Defendant.

COMPLAINT

Here this day comes the above-named Plaintiff, John Robert Markley (“Dr. Markley”), by

counsel, and states as his Complaint against Defendant Liberty University, Inc., (“Defendant” or

“LU”), the following:

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Year after year leading to his termination from employment, Dr. Markley engaged in

whistle blower activities. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter as it arises from statutory

authority, to-wit, Virginia’s whistle blower retaliation statute as codified under Va. Code § 40.1-

27.3 (“Whistle Blower Act”).

2. Pertinent to this matter, the acts and/or omissions of LU from which the following cause

of action arises, occurred within the City of Lynchburg, Virginia.

3. Omissions and acts of LU were committed by LU management and/or those with the
authority of LU to act upon LU’s interests. Dr. Markley is a resident of Bedford County, Virginia,

and, until his unlawful termination on June 24, 2022, was employed on a full-time basis by LU.

4. Commissions of acts and/or omissions causing harm to Dr. Markley are attributed to LU

under principles of agency law and theory. LU is a private evangelical university located primarily

in the City of Lynchburg, Virginia. LU has an annual enrollment of approximately 100,000

students throughout seventeen departmentalized colleges that are all owned and managed by LU.

LU’s endowment is nearly two billion dollars.

5. Retaliation is hereby claimed by Dr. Markley and imputed to LU for purposes of liability.

Claims under the Whistle Blower Act require timely initiation of the claim. Dr. Markley has

commenced this litigation within one (1) year of his retaliatory discharge, pursuant to Va. Code §

40.1-27.3.

II. THE FACTS

1. John R. Markley: A Key Figure in Liberty University’s Administration

6. Initially hired by LU in 2008 as an adjunct member of the faculty, Dr. Markley became a

full-time employee in March of 2017. At that time, Dr. Markley began what was the first of several

roles he held in the LU administration. Dr. Markley has worked for LU as an Assessment

Coordinator in the College of General Studies, an Associate Professor of the New Testament, and

Associate Dean in the College of General Studies. Most recently, Dr. Markley was employed by

LU as the Administrative Dean for Academic Operations. This particular role had multiple direct

reports and was responsible for overseeing critical operations needs such as personnel/human

resources functions and the administration of compensation among many other duties. Dr.

Markley’s work in this particular role was as a senior administrator within the Office of the Provost

and Chief Academic Officer, Scott Hicks.

2
 7. The improprieties witnessed by Dr. Markley were numerous. Due to his position within

the LU administration, Dr. Markley witnessed many acts by LU officials regarding the

fundamental management of the entire corporation. As a not-for-profit enterprise, LU’s business

operations and revenue management must adhere to a regulatory framework pursuant to state and

federal corporate and tax laws. Dr. Markley’s position provided an eye-opening perspective on

the inner workings of a multi-billion-dollar enterprise that operated to maximize profits without

ethics and at the expense of truth and those willing to fight for it, and to the detriment of the

students, and professors.

2. Numerous Protected Activities; the Whistle Rarely Stopped Blowing

8. Exemplifying the very aim of the Whistle Blower Act, this case regards Dr. Markley’s

repeated good faith reports of disturbing violations and potential violations of state and federal

laws to LU leadership ― including his supervisors ― and law enforcement officials. At all times,

Dr. Markley was motivated by the fundamental understanding of “doing what is right” in contrast

to doing what an individual knows in their heart to be wrong.

9. Sadly, in retaliation for his repeated attempts to: (1) correct what Dr. Markley suspected

was foul play; (2) provide notice of troublesome concerns that needed to be addressed before

worsening; and (3) provide figurative sunlight upon activities in which an evangelical organization

should not otherwise be engaged, LU terminated Dr. Markley’s employment and injured Dr.

Markley and his family financially and emotionally.

10. Dr. Markley reported many improprieties leading up to the time of his termination. Dr.

Markley relayed his concerns to LU leadership, LU lawyers hired to conduct an investigation for

the Board of Trustees, and representatives of law enforcement. For example, Dr. Markley was

interviewed by lawyers representing LU for approximately ninety (90) minutes during which

3
Dr. Markley disclosed a litany of improper activities he witnessed at LU. Dr. Markley has

provided verbal statements and submitted hundreds of pages of information related to LU’s

wrongdoing to multiple federal authorities.

11. Dr. Markley reported these issues as he had a good faith belief that they were violations of

the law and doing so was in the best interests of the institution, its students, and its academic

programs. Dr. Markley is an alumni of LU’s undergraduate program and Divinity School and

strongly supports the school’s professed mission.

12. Dr. Markley began voicing his concerns as early as 2018 but engaged in an increasing

number of protected reports in the years and months leading to his termination. All of his protected

reports regarded improper activities occurring at LU. All of the activities he reported regarded

violations of numerous federal and state laws. At times, Dr. Markley cited to specific federal and

state laws when communicating in furtherance of his whistle blowing activities.

13. The following is a non-exhaustive summary of Markley’s protected reports regarding

improper activities:

a. Unjust enrichment due to the potentially fraudulent management of a network of

charitable organizations by LU;

b. Unjust enrichment due to the potentially fraudulent management of a network of

corporate subsidiaries of LU;

c. Improper use of LU assets such as a jet airplane owned by LU;

d. Unjust enrichment due to the implementation of faculty textbook selections and

sales;

e. Improper financial account activities and transactions in the Department of

Academic Affairs and the Provost’s Office budget;

4
 f. Improper acts to thwart and/or obstruct the aims of Title IX and corrective measures

to combat sexual assault on campus;

g. An improper compensation scheme for LU business executives;

h. LU’s intentional misrepresentation of acceptance rates and enrollment numbers for

improper financial gain;

i. LU’s intentional misrepresentation of financial holdings for improper financial

gain;

j. LU’s intentional concealment of assets/revenue through the use of third-party

business entities;

k. Conflicts of interest related to parties hired to allegedly investigate incidents of

wrongdoing at LU;

l. LU’s retaliatory actions taken against employees of LU;

m. Misrepresentations to the public and to accreditors regarding the academic

programs of LU;

n. Intentional destruction of likely relevant evidence illustrating LU’s wrongdoing to

which LU knew it had a duty to preserve under the law; and

o. Improper and incorrect information regarding employee data submitted to federal

customs and immigration officials.

14. These protected reports increased in the months leading up to Dr. Markley’s termination.

In March, April, May, and June, of 2022, Dr. Markley engaged in multiple protected acts each

month.

3. Terminated Without Cause

15. Dr. Markley performed his work in exemplary fashion and at least met if not exceeded the

5
legitimate business expectations of LU. At no time did Dr. Markley receive workplace discipline,

or a performance improvement plan from LU.

16. Dr. Markley’s direct supervision included Scott Hicks, Provost and Chief Academic

Officer, who served under LU President, Jerry Prevo, at the time of Dr. Markley’s wrongful

termination.

17. LU terminated Dr. Markley’s employment on or about June 24, 2022 without cause. LU

claimed that the termination was due to a purported “reorganization;” however, this was a pretext

to mask insidious retaliation. The term was adopted by LU to allegedly justify the termination of

an employee that had demonstrated exemplary work performance.

18. But for Dr. Markley’s numerous protected reports under the law, LU would not have

terminated Dr. Markley’s employment.

COUNT I: TERMINATING DR. MARKLEY’S EMPLOYMENT IN VIOLATION OF VA

19. Dr. Markley incorporates by reference herein the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.

20. Virginia Code § 40.1-27.3(A)(1) states that “[a]n employer shall not discharge, discipline,

threaten, discriminate against, or penalize an employee, or take other retaliatory action regarding

an employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment, because

the employee: Or a person acting on behalf of the employee in good faith reports a violation of

any federal or state law or regulation to a supervisor or to any governmental body or law-

enforcement official[.]”

21. Virginia Code § 40.1-27.3(A)(5) states that “[a]n employer shall not discharge, discipline,

threaten, discriminate against, or penalize an employee, or take other retaliatory action regarding

an employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment, because

6
the employee: Provides information to or testifies before any governmental body or law-

enforcement official conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry into any alleged violation by

the employer of federal or state law or regulation.”

22. Dr. Markley was terminated from employment due to his protected acts and in violation of

Virginia Code § 40.1-27.3.

23. Pursuant to Virginia Code § 40.1-27.3, Dr. Markley is entitled to “(i) an injunction to

restrain continued violation of this section, (ii) the reinstatement of the employee to the same

position held before the retaliatory action or to an equivalent position, and (iii) compensation for

lost wages, benefits, and other remuneration, together with interest thereon, as well as reasonable

attorney fees and costs.”

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff John Robert Markley prays for judgment against Defendant

Liberty University, Inc. in the amount of TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS ($20,000,000.00) and

for lost wages and benefits, equitable relief to include front pay, other remuneration to include

prejudgment interest from the date of Defendant LU’s discharge of Dr. Markley, injunctive relief

to restrain continued violation, and for costs and attorneys’ fees, and for such other and further

relief as may be just and equitable.

Trial by jury is demanded on all issues on which Dr. Markley is entitled to a trial by jury,

including any question concerning whether Dr. Markley’s claims must be submitted to arbitration.

November 17, 2022

Respectfully Submitted,

By:
Thomas E. Strelka, Esq. (VSB# 75488)

7
Brittany M. Haddox, Esq. (VSB # 86416)
L. Leigh R. Strelka, Esq. (VSB # 73355)
N. Winston West, IV, Esq. (VSB # 92598)
Monica L. Mroz, Esq. (VSB #65766)
STRELKA EMPLOYMENT LAW
4227 Colonial Avenue
Roanoke, VA 24018
Tel: 540-283-0802
brittany@strelkalaw.com
thomas@strelkalaw.com
leigh@strelkalaw.com
winston@strelkalaw.com
monica@strelkalaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiff