The governor of Ohio and an attorney working for Ohio’s Bureau of Workers Compensation are disagreeing about what is a "typical whistleblower situation." According to the Columbus Dispatch, attorney Joseph Sommer sent an email to the Governor last May. He asked for an official state investigation of why a state panel had not complied with a state law requiring nominations for the Industrial Commission within sixty (60) days of a vacancy. Sommer used the state’s email account to send his email. Instead of investigating the state’s nominating panel, the state investigated Sommer for using his work email account.  The state has now issued a reprimand to Sommer for communication that was less than "professional." Sommer is contesting it.  The Governor’s office says that Sommer’s case, "differs from a typical whistle-blower situation." I don’t know.  An employee points out how superior officials are breaking the law, and the boss blames the messenger.  That sounds pretty typical to me. The boss says that the whistleblower didn’t use the proper means for raising the concern.  That sounds pretty typical, too. The boss punishes the whistleblower.  Typical again. Sommer may benefit from following the Supreme Court’s consideration of City of Ontario v. Quon. The issue there is whether employees can have any expectation of privacy in using work equipment to communicate. Also, it is ironic to have a state claiming that the whistleblower communication was personal and didn’t belong on the work computer. That argument could support Sommer if he were to claim that his email was made in his personal capacity and protected under Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006).