In a nutshell, it cuts and pastes liberally from Ryan’s initial Complaint, does little to fix up the problems with the initial Complaint (despite the UL motion materials being, virtually, a “how-to” manual for Ryan) and goes on to claim:
- that UL's Motion to Dismiss wrongly asserts things that Ryan did not assert in his pleading, and that, therefore, UL's motion materials go beyond the scope of a motion to dismiss;
- that Ryan's claims regarding First Amendment rights have yet to accrue, so Ryan should be entitled to assert an unfounded cause of action on this front;
- that Ryan's Complaint adequately asserts a claim to an exception to the employment-at-will law of Indiana on the basis of public policy exception;
- that Ryan's Complaint properly asserts a cause of action pursuant to the private employees' whistleblower legislation; and
- alternatively, that if Ryan has not properly asserted any cause of action, as alleged by UL, he should be granted leave to amend his complaint to plead it properly.
Interestingly, Ryan virtually admits that he is on a fishing expedition, and concedes that he has no facts to support his allegation that the government acted to cause his discharge or that UL acted under colour of law in discharging him.