Preview:

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Gerald J. Sacco,    :
   Appellant  :
     :
  v.   : No. 1024 C.D. 2004
     : Argued:  September 8, 2004
Township of Butler   :

BEFORE: HONORABLE DORIS A. SMITH-RIBNER, Judge
HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge
HONORABLE JESS S. JIULIANTE, Senior Judge


OPINION BY JUDGE SMITH-RIBNER    FILED: December 14, 2004

Gerald J. Sacco (Sacco) appeals from an order of the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, which granted in part the motion for summary judgment filed by the Township of Butler (Township) and dismissed Count I of Sacco's complaint seeking damages for the Township's alleged breach of an employment contract.  Sacco contends that the trial court erred or abused its discretion in holding that his action against a Second Class Township may not be sustained because the contract was void and unenforceable as a matter of law.
On December 8, 1994, Butler Township Manager James H. Patrick extended a written offer of employment to Sacco for the position of township public works foreman, which was authorized by three Township Supervisors and approved by resolution at their December 12, 1994 meeting.  Sacco contended that he was offered a ten-year employment contract, which he accepted, to perform specified duties including the supervision and management of Road Department crews but not including the performance of Road Department labor.  Sacco's July 1995 performance evaluation stated that he exceeded expectations in all categories, but by September 1995 Sacco was demoted to the position of working foreman, which required him to perform labor work and operate heavy equipment.  He was stripped of his supervisory duties.  Sacco was not licensed to perform some of the working foreman duties, and he resigned his position on September 22, 1995.
Sacco filed a complaint against the Township on February 2, 1999, alleging a breach of employment contract claim in Count I, interference with Sacco's ability to contract with other prospective employers in Count II and a punitive damages claim in Count III.  The Township specifically denied that Sacco was offered a ten-year employment contract, and it thereafter filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of Counts I and II of Sacco's complaint.  Sacco filed a motion for partial summary judgment in which he asserted that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied to his action based on this Court's decision in unemployment proceedings captioned Sacco v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 412 C.D. 1996, filed September 11, 1996).1
On November 20, 2001, the trial court denied Sacco's motion but granted the Township's motion in part, dismissing Count I.  The court held that even if the Township entered into a ten-year contract with Sacco it was void and unenforceable.  The court cited Stumpp v. Stroudsburg Municipal Authority, 540 Pa. 391, 394, 658 A.2d 333, 334 (1995), for the holding that Commonwealth authorities and agencies do "not have the power under law to enter into contracts of employment that contract away the right of summary dismissal, since the power to confer tenure must be expressly set forth in the enabling legislation."  The court cited Bolduc v. Board of Supervisors of Lower Paxton Township, 618 A.2d 1188 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992), for the proposition that The Second Class Township Code, Act of May 1, 1933, P.L. 103, as amended, 53 P.S.

Download 1024cd04-12-14-04.pdf

Pennsylvania Law