Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-0591 STEPHANIE REEDER, Plaintiff V. MANITO INC and ROBERT C. WHITMORE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. Q 8'- ?4l cry-1 -1 ?r.1 : CIVIL : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-3308 (717) 249-3166 STEPHANIE REEDER, Plaintiff V. MANITO INC and ROBERT C. WHITMORE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 6 R- 5 CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT Introductory Statement 1. This is an action for breach of contract and wrongful termination by a former teacher at the Manito, Inc. Cumberland County Center who was wrongfully terminated in violation of a contract she had entered into with Manito Inc., a therapeutic education center providing a non- residential, community-based alternative for adolescents displaying behavioral problems. In addition to naming Manito, this lawsuit names as a party defendant its President, Robert C. Whitmore, who treated the corporate entity as his alter ego. Parties 2. Plaintiff is Stephanie Reeder, an adult individual residing at 171 West North Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. At all times relevant to the Complaint, Plaintiff taught Life Skills, Gym and Health at the Manito, Inc. Cumberland County Center. 3. Defendant Manito Inc. is a Pennsylvania not-for-profit corporation with a principal office at 7564 Brown's Mill Road, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania 17202-9252. During the events giving rise to this cause of action, Plaintiff was employed at the Manito, Inc. Cumberland County Center located at 898 Waggoner's Gap Road; Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. 4. Defendant Robert C. Whitmore is the President and CEO of Manito Inc. For all practical purposes, Manito functions as the alter ego of Whitmore, who ignores corporate policies and boundaries in treating the organization as an extension of himself. Predicate Facts On June 13, 2007, Plaintiff Stephanie Reeder (hereinafter, "Reeder") executed a contract entitled, "PROFESSIONAL AGREEMENT SCHOOL YEAR PERSONNEL" (see Exhibit "A" appended to this Complaint, copy of said Professional Agreement). The Agreement was also executed on the same date on behalf of Manito by Susan Burkholder, Program Coordinator. 6. Prominently displayed at the top of the contractual agreement is the word, "Employee," - with Stephanie Reeder's name handwritten - and the following inscription in bold lettering: "School Year Service Days: 190," indicating that the contract was for a specified term, i.e., 190 days. 7. This contract for a specified term contained three provisions which related to termination of the agreement, as follows: J. School Year Personnel who leave employment with Manito before the end of the school year agree to not seek employment with any competitor in a similar job capacity within Pennsylvania for the remainder of the current school year. Employees are also not permitted to work with a competitor organization while they are employed by Manito. K. If an employee does initiate employment with a competing organization and leave the employment of Manito, said individual may not take any proprietary knowledge or property of Manito Inc.... L. Employees terminating their employment with Manito Inc. may not solicit other employees to leave Manito to obtain employment with a new organization that is considered a program competitor to Manito services for a period of at least two years. N. Any employee who does not plan to return for the next school year is requested to notify his/her Program Coordinator by June 1 of this intention. (emphasis added) 8. Thus, the Manito Professional Agreement for School Year Personnel was an employment agreement for a specified term which only contemplated the employee terminating the agreement before the 190 day period had expired. 9. Reeder had actually been employed at the Manito, Inc. Cumberland County Center since the 2006-2007 school year. During that school year, Reeder worked pursuant to an oral agreement between the parties. After Reeder insisted upon a written contractual agreement, the Agreement found at Exhibit "A" to this Complaint was drafted by Manito. At that time, Manito had no policy in place relating to termination at-will by the Employer. 10. Reeder had actually been interviewed and hired by John Dechert, her supervisor and former Program Coordinator who left Manito at the end of the 2006-2007 school year to work for a competing organization, River Rock Academy, Shiremanstown Campus, 41 South Locust Street in Shiresmanstown, Cumberland County. Dechert was replaced by Susan Burkholder, a long time employee of Manito who functioned as both Program Coordinator and Director of Day Treatment and Children & Youth Services. 11. At the time of Dechert's leaving Manito for River Rock, Reeder had the opportunity to leave with him and to become similarly employed by River Rock at their Shiresmanstown Campus. 12. At the time, on or about May, 2007, Reeder questioned Robert Whitmore, Manito CEO and President, concerning long-term job stability in light of the fact that the written contract drafted by Manito was for one year only and Reeder was a single mother. Whitmore's response was, "the job is effectively yours until you would resign." Based upon this assurance, Reeder remained with Manito and did not terminate her employment in favor of Deckert and River Rock Academy. 13. As a result of being hired by, as well as her association with Deckert, new Program Coordinator Burkholder immediately adopted a negative attitude toward Reeder. 14. This attitude was reflected in a performance review conducted by Burkholder on June 13, 2007, shortly after Deckert left the employ of Manito. Burkholder had never observed Reeder in the classroom. Although thirteen categories were marked as "meets expectations," five categories were denoted as "below expectations." This was in marked contrast to the Classroom Observation Form completed by Kenneth Byers, who did observe Reeder in the classroom. This Observation, dated October 26, 2006, included a satisfactory level of performance for all nineteen categories of performance review. Among other comments, this review noted that Reeder "[had] established an obvious rapport with the students" and that there was "mutual respect shown" between teacher and students. 15. During the Fall of 2007, various staff meetings occurred in which employees were informed of Manito's poor financial situation with the expectation that someone may need to be furloughed. Employees were reassured that Manito was taking all necessary steps to handle the financial deficiency and that if anyone was to be furloughed, there would be proper advance notice; proper administrative guidelines would be followed; and that there would not be "surprise" layoffs, especially at the holidays. 16. In fact, the Manito Employee Manual contained a section entitled, "Lay-Offs." This section stated, inter alia, : Manito operates programs in a fiscally responsible manner. Program activities and expenditures are regularly monitored to ensure adequate funding is available to maintain a quality staff. Periods of reduced program activity may force a reduction of staffing levels to maintain a financially acceptable position . Staff reduction activities will be predicated on a uniform procedure. 1. Introductory and temporary employees will be the first dismissed.... 3.Manito will give an employee being laid off a 30-day advance notice, except in a case of an emergency layoff where the situation would not have been predictable. 4. Annual leave pay for annual leave time earned but not taken will be paid to the employee laid off. 17. In addition to the identified layoff procedure, the Manito Employee Handbook further defined the acceptable procedure during its description of an employee's "Introductory Period, " when it stated:"[e]mployees who successfully complete the introductory period will not be dismissed without prior approval of the Manito Board of Directors, Personnel Committee in accordance with prescribed procedures." 18. Notwithstanding this identified procedure, during the Fall of 2007, Susan Burkholder (hereinafter, "Burkholder") announced that the person to be furloughed would be chosen by her (Burkholder's) own personal evaluation. 19. On November 14, 2007, while Reeder was in the office copying papers for her students, she discovered to her surprise that her resume and cover letter had printed out in the midst of the papers for her students. Since Burkholder was in an adjoining office, she confronted Burkholder to determine if she had printed out Reeder's confidential information and if this had something to do with the upcoming furlough. 20. Burkholder responded (falsely, as it later turned out) that she was just printing it out for Reeder's personnel file, and that it had nothing to do with a future layoff. In fact, Burkholder had already made her decision and, significantly, had already acted to cancel Reeder's health insurance coverage, effective December 1, 2007. 21. Significantly, Manito President and CEO Whitmire, with prior knowledge that a furlough was to occur, acted to fraudulently change the Employee Handbook to add a section purportedly granting the Company the right to terminate employees at-will. This was a conscious effort to protect Manito from legal jeopardy for breach of the contract they had drafted. Neither Reeder, nor any other employees, were informed of these changes or agreed to them. 22. On Thursday, November 29, 2007, Reeder was escorted to Burkholder's office and told that she was the one chosen via Burkholder's personal evaluation to be furloughed. Although she was purportedly offered another position as an aide working with a five year old elementary student at another location on the behavioral health side of Manito, that position represented a dramatic decrease in pay and required evening and weekend hours when daycare was not available for her child. Recognizing this as a non-offer and Manito's action as effectively a constructive discharge, Reeder refused the offer. 23. Notwithstanding the established procedures delineated at paragraphs 16-17 above, Manito furloughed Reeder - who had already successfully completed her probationary period - over six employees hired after her who had not completed their probationary periods. When questioned by Reeder concerning these facts, Burkholder responded that the decision was done and had been finalized by Whitmire himself. 24. Reeder was never given anything in writing from Manito or its Human Resources Office, confirming that she had, indeed, been furloughed. 25. When Reeder and her family complained that her health insurance benefits had been abruptly cancelled with no COBRA continuation notices as required by law, CEO Robert Whitmire reinstated them through the end of February, 2008, at which point they will be terminated. Count I - Reeder v. Manito Inc. and Whitmire _(Breach of Express Contract) 26. Paragraphs 1-25 of the Complaint are incorporated by reference, as if fully set forth in their entirety. 27. The "Professional Agreement School Year Personnel," appended as Exhibit "A" to the Complaint, is an express contract for employment services for a specified period of time and, accordingly, is outside the at-will doctrine under the common law of Pennsylvania. 28. Both Manito Inc. and Whitmire breached this Agreement by furloughing Reeder without paying her for the 190 days and other "agreement days" for which she was contracted to perform professional services. 29. Reeder has been damaged, as follows: (a) $23,210.46 remaining on basic contract (126 days x $184.21 daily rate); (b) $368.42 for two (2) annual leave days for which she did not receive pay; (c) $2,492.36 for accrued sick leave (101.50 hours) for which she was not paid; and (d) $736.84 for four (4) additional days for which she was not paid for summer training, for a total of $26.808.08. In addition, she will be damaged after March 1, 2008, by losing Company-paid health insurance benefits. WHEREFORE, it is requested that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against both Defendants jointly as to Count I of the Complaint in the amount of $26,808.08, plus the cost of providing health insurance for Plaintiff and her son, together with taxable costs and interest. Count II - Reeder v. Manito Inc. and Whitmire (Breach of Contract Implied In Fact) 30. Paragraphs 1-25 of the Complaint are incorporated by reference, as if fully set forth in their entirety. 31. Manito Inc. established policies and procedures governing the furlough of any employees should economic circumstances dictate such a necessity. These policies and procedures were published as part of its Employee Handbook. 32. Manito Inc. established policies and procedures governing the dismissal of any employee who had successfully completed the introductory period. These policies and procedures were published as part of its Employee Handbook. 33. These policies and procedures, which are outlined at paragraphs 16-17 of the Complaint, rose to the level of a contract implied in fact between the parties, Stephanie Reeder and Manito Inc. 34. Manito Inc. and Whitmire breached this contract implied in fact by, a) failing to choose the employee to be furloughed on the basis of those who had not completed their introductory period or were temporary; b) by failing to give Reeder thirty (30) days notice of her furlough; and (c) by failing to have Reeder's furlough considered by and approved by the Personnel Committee of the Board of Directors. 35. In addition, in May, 2007, Manito President and CEO, Robert Whitmire -on behalf of Manito - made an oral covenant with Reeder that she would keep her position until and unless she would voluntarily terminate her own employment. The consideration for this covenant was that Reeder would forego leaving Manito for employment with River Rock Academy through her supervisor, John Deckert. Manito and Whitmire have breached this contract implied in fact/oral contract. In addition, performance of this covenant is protected by the doctrine of promissory estoppel, which is part of the common law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 36. In addition to the relief specified at paragraph 28 above, Reeder requests the award of front pay in the amount of $70,000.00 (two years of front pay), as a result of the covenant detailed at paragraphs 12 and 35 of the Complaint. Reeder had a legitimate expectation that the property interest in her employment would be ongoing and last until she decided to terminate the employment. WHEREFORE, it is requested that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against both Defendants jointly as to Count II of the Complaint, in the amount of $26,808.08, plus an additional $70,000.00 for front pay, as well as the cost of providing health insurance for Plaintiff and her son, together with taxable costs and interest. Count III - Reeder v. Manito Inc. and Whitmire (Wrongful Discharge) 37. Paragraphs 1-25 of the Complaint are incorporated by reference, as if fully set forth in their entirety. 38. The action of Manito and Whitmire in constructively terminating Reeder was tortuous, in that a) she possessed a property interest in her employment which was protected by a written contract for a specified term, taking it outside the at-will doctrine under Pennsylvania common law; b) she possessed a property interest in her employment which was protected from furlough by the covenants and procedures established by Manito for selecting which employees would be furloughed ; and c) she had furnished additional consideration for the Defendants' covenant not to terminate the employment except by her own voluntary act, which also took it outside the Pennsylvania version of the at-will doctrine. 39. Reeder has been damaged in the amounts delineated at paragraphs 29 and 36 of the Complaint. WHEREFORE, it is requested that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Manito Inc. and Whitmire jointly as to Count III of the Complaint in the amount of $26,808.08, plus an additional $70,000.00 for front pay, as well as the cost of providing health insurance for Plaintiff and her son, together with taxable costs and interest. Count IV - Reeder v. Whitmire (Fraud) 40. Paragraphs 1-25 of the Complaint are incorporated by reference, as if fully set forth in their entirety. 41. As set forth at paragraph 21 of the Complaint, Defendant Robert Whitmire acted fraudulently in altering the Employee Manual, by inserting a purported at-will doctrine, to make it appear as if this policy was in effect at the time that Reeder entered into her written contract. 42. In addition, Whitmire completely ignored the policies and procedures governing lay-offs and the protection of employees who had completed their introductory period by treating the corporate entity as his own personal fiefdom. 43. Whitmire's conduct was outrageous, justifying the imposition of a punitive damage award. WHEREFORE, it is requested that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Whitmire individually as to Count IV of the Complaint in the amount of $26,808.08, plus an additional $70,000.00 for front pay, an award of punitive damages, as well as the cost of providing health insurance for Plaintiff and her son, together with taxable costs and interest. Respectfully submitted, AL 01 - & .14M. Kerr, Esquire I.D. # 26414 Law Office of John M. Kerr, Esquire 5000 Ritter Road Suite 202 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 766-4008 Dated: January 25, 2008 VERIFICATION The undersigned, Stephanie Reeder, hereby states that she is the Plaintiff in the foregoing Complaint and, as such, is authorized to execute this Verification and that any factual statements contained in the Complaint are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief. She understands that any false statements are subject to the penalties prescribed at 18 Pa. C.S.§4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 4 Stephanie Reeder MANITO INC. 7,664 Browns Mill Road Chambersburg, PA 17222 717 375-4834 Fax: 375-4067 PROFESSIONAL AGREEMENT SCHOOL YEAWPERSONNEL .. This work agreement outlines employment guidelines for School Year Personnel employed by Manito, Inc. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Employee: S4,) hrn,Y &6&r School Year Service Days: 190 General Conditions: A. School Year Personnel will be available on a full-time schedule (7.5 hours per day) beginning the start of the school year in August, and ending at the completion of the academic year for a total of 190 school/developnient days. B. School Year Personnel will be available for staff meetings, preparing classrooms for instruction, professional development, and/or interviewing program students during the week prior to the beginning of the school year, and for completing written reports and attending professional development at the end of the school year. C. Manito staff are required to complete 40 hours of professional development each year. These hours can be completed by: e Manito in-service programs e Graduate studies e Outside conferences or development programs approved by the appropriate Program Coordinator or Division Administrator (School District Act 80 days) e Summer institute development programs provided by Manito or other approved organizations New employees are expected to complete five days of orientation and basic skills instruction prior to beginning the school year or within one calendar year-of hire date. All School Personnel are also expected to complete a basic week in Choice Theory within one year from the beginning of employment. D. Special staff meetings or staff development programs held during the summer months or school year ap counted as part of your schedule. E. If the total days of this agreement are completed by School Year Personnel prior to completion of the school year or staff development days, the employee may request additional days to be approved by the appropriate Program Coordinator or Division Administrator. Compensation for the additional time worked will be at the per diem rate of $100. F. If the total days are not completed within the agreement period designated by your Program Coordinator or Division Administrator, a correction will be made to the last paycheck of the agreement year for the non-completed days. F. School Year Personnel working under this agreement are entitled to receive two days annual leave which must be taken within the agreement period and which are counted as agreement days. Annual leave.. may not be carried over to another year and if not used within the agreement period will be forfeited. Annual leave days should be taken prior to April 15 if possible. Holidays will not be counted as agreement days. G. School Year Personnel working under this agreement may accumulate 10 sick days per year and accrue up to a maximum of 60 days. 1. School Year Personnel are paid throughout the calendar year. Personnel who leave employment with Manito before completing the full school year will forfeit any compensation accrued from the beginning of the school year. Employee would essentially become a full-time employee and receive pay only through his/her last day of work. (This does not pertain to employees who are paid hourly wages.) J. School Year Personnel who leave employment with Manito before the end of the school year agree to not seek employment with any competitor in a similar job capacity within Pennsylvania for the remainder of the current school year. Employees are also not permitted to work with a competitor organization while they are employed by Manito. K. If an employee does initiate employment with a competing organization and leave the employment of Manito, said individual may not take any proprietary knowledge or property of Manito Inc.. (Examples would be policy manuals, case record forms, intake information, or staff development programs.) L. Employees terminating their employment with Manito Inc. may not solicit other employees to leave Manito to obtain employment with a new organization that is considered a program competitor to Manito services for a period of at least two years. M. Employees are expected to comply with all conditions and requirements of the Employee Handbook and any amendments thereto shall remain in effect. N. Any employee who does not plan to return for the next school year is requested to notify his/her Program Coordinator by June 1 of this intention. '` -. P J ( „,_ O G lrj ? _. ? ?? ? c, Q ? ?` s C ?? .? STEPHANIE REEDER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 08-591 Civil Term MANITO INC and ROBERT C. WHITMORE, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AMENDED COMPLAINT Introductory Statement 1. This is an action for breach of contract and wrongful termination by a former teacher at the Manito, Inc. Cumberland County Center who was wrongfully terminated in violation of a contract she had entered into with Manito Inc., a therapeutic education center providing a non- residential, community-based alternative for adolescents displaying behavioral problems. In addition to naming Manito, this lawsuit names as a party defendant its President, Robert C. Whitmore, who treated the corporate entity as his alter ego. Parties 2. Plaintiff is Stephanie Reeder, an adult individual residing at 171 West North Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. At all times relevant to the Complaint, Plaintiff taught Life Skills, Gym and Health at the Manito, Inc. Cumberland County Center. 3. Defendant Manito Inc. is a Pennsylvania not-for-profit corporation with a principal office at 7564 Brown's Mill Road, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania 17202-9252. During the events giving rise to this cause of action, Plaintiff was employed at the Manito, Inc. Cumberland County Center located at 898 Waggoner's Gap Road; Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. 4. Defendant Robert C. Whitmore is the President and CEO of Manito Inc. For all practical purposes, Manito functions as the alter ego of Whitmore, who ignores corporate policies and boundaries in treating the organization as an extension of himself. Predicate Facts 5. On June 13, 2007, Plaintiff Stephanie Reeder (hereinafter, "Reeder") executed a contract entitled, "PROFESSIONAL AGREEMENT SCHOOL YEAR PERSONNEL" (see Exhibit "A" appended to this Complaint, copy of said Professional Agreement). The Agreement was also executed on the same date on behalf of Manito by Susan Burkholder, Program Coordinator. 6. Prominently displayed at the top of the contractual agreement is the word, "Employee," - with Stephanie Reeder's name handwritten - and the following inscription in bold lettering: "School Year Service Days: 190," indicating that the contract was for a specified term, i.e., 190 days. 7. This contract for a specified term contained three provisions which related to termination of the agreement, as follows: School Year Personnel who leave employment with Manito before the end of the school year agree to not seek employment with any competitor in a similar job capacity within Pennsylvania for the remainder of the current school year. Employees are also not permitted to work with a competitor organization while they are employed by Manito. If an employee does initiate employment with a competing organization and leave the employment of Manito, said individual may not take any proprietary knowledge or property of Manito Inc.... L. Employees terminating their employment with Manito Inc. may not solicit other employees to leave Manito to obtain employment with a new organization that is considered a program competitor to Manito services for a period of at least two years. N. Any employee who does not plan to return for the next school year is requested to notify his/her Program Coordinator by June 1 of this intention. (emphasis added) 8. Thus, the Manito Professional Agreement for School Year Personnel was an employment agreement for a specified term which only contemplated the employee terminating the agreement before the 190 day period had expired. 9. Reeder had actually been employed at the Manito, Inc. Cumberland County Center since the 2006-2007 school year. During that school year, Reeder worked pursuant to an oral agreement between the parties. After Reeder insisted upon a written contractual agreement, the Agreement found at Exhibit "A" to this Complaint was drafted by Manito. At that time, Manito had no policy in place relating to termination at-will by the Employer. 10. Reeder had actually been interviewed and hired by John Dechert, her supervisor and former Program Coordinator who left Manito at the end of the 2006-2007 school year to work for a competing organization, River Rock Academy, Shiremanstown Campus, 41 South Locust Street in Shiresmanstown, Cumberland County. Dechert was replaced by Susan Burkholder, a long time employee of Manito who functioned as both Program Coordinator and Director of Day Treatment and Children & Youth Services. 11. At the time of Dechert's leaving Manito for River Rock, Reeder had the opportunity to leave with him and to become similarly employed by River Rock at their Shiresmanstown Campus. 12. At the time, on or about May, 2007, Reeder questioned Robert Whitmore, Manito CEO and President, concerning long-term job stability in light of the fact that the written contract drafted by Manito was for one year only and Reeder was a single mother. Whitmore's response was, "the job is effectively yours until you would resign." Based upon this assurance, Reeder remained with Manito and did not terminate her employment in favor of Deckert and River Rock Academy. 13. As a result of being hired by, as well as her association with Deckert, new Program Coordinator Burkholder immediately adopted a negative attitude toward Reeder. 14. This attitude was reflected in a performance review conducted by Burkholder on June 13, 2007, shortly after Deckert left the employ of Manito. Burkholder had never observed Reeder in the classroom. Although thirteen categories were marked as "meets expectations," five categories were denoted as "below expectations." This was in marked contrast to the Classroom Observation Form completed by Kenneth Byers, who did observe Reeder in the classroom. This Observation, dated October 26, 2006, included a satisfactory level of performance for all nineteen categories of performance review. Among other comments, this review noted that Reeder "[had] established an obvious rapport with the students" and that there was "mutual respect shown" between teacher and students. 15. During the Fall of 2007, various staff meetings occurred in which employees were informed of Manito's poor financial situation with the expectation that someone may need to be furloughed. Employees were reassured that Manito was taking all necessary steps to handle the financial deficiency and that if anyone was to be furloughed, there would be proper advance notice; proper administrative guidelines would be followed; and that there would not be "surprise" layoffs, especially at the holidays. 16. In fact, the Manito Employee Manual contained a section entitled, "Lay-Offs." This section stated, inter alia, Manito operates programs in a fiscally responsible manner. Program activities and expenditures are regularly monitored to ensure adequate funding is available to maintain a quality staff. Periods of reduced program activity may force a reduction of staffing levels to maintain a financially acceptable position . Staff reduction activities will be predicated on a uniform procedure. 1. Introductory and temporary employees will be the first dismissed.... 3.Manito will give an employee being laid off a 30-day advance notice, except in a case of an emergency layoff where the situation would not have been predictable. 4. Annual leave pay for annual leave time earned but not taken will be paid to the employee laid off. 17. In addition to the identified layoff procedure, the Manito Employee Handbook further defined the acceptable procedure during its description of an employee's "Introductory Period, " when it stated:"[e]mployees who successfully complete the introductory period will not be dismissed without prior approval of the Manito Board of Directors, Personnel Committee in accordance with prescribed procedures." 18. Notwithstanding this identified procedure, during the Fall of 2007, Susan Burkholder (hereinafter, "Burkholder") announced that the person to be furloughed would be chosen by her (Burkholder's) own personal evaluation. 19. On November 14, 2007, while Reeder was in the office copying papers for her students, she discovered to her surprise that her resume and cover letter had printed out in the midst of the papers for her students. Since Burkholder was in an adjoining office, she confronted Burkholder to determine if she had printed out Reeder's confidential information and if this had something to do with the upcoming furlough. 20. Burkholder responded (falsely, as it later turned out) that she was just printing it out for Reeder's personnel file, and that it had nothing to do with a future layoff. In fact, Burkholder had already made her decision and, significantly, had already acted to cancel Reeder's health insurance coverage, effective December 1, 2007. 21. Significantly, Manito President and CEO Whitmore, with prior knowledge that a furlough was to occur, acted to fraudulently change the Employee Handbook to add a section purportedly granting the Company the right to terminate employees at-will. This was a conscious effort to protect Manito from legal jeopardy for breach of the contract they had drafted. Neither Reeder, nor any other employees, were informed of these changes or agreed to them. 22. On Thursday, November 29, 2007, Reeder was escorted to Burkholder's office and told that she was the one chosen via Burkholder's personal evaluation to be furloughed. Although she was purportedly offered another position as an aide working with a five year old elementary student at another location on the behavioral health side of Manito, that position represented a dramatic decrease in pay and required evening and weekend hours when daycare was not available for her child. Recognizing this as a non-offer and Manito's action as effectively a constructive discharge, Reeder later refused the offer. 23. Notwithstanding the established procedures delineated at paragraphs 16-17 above, Manito furloughed Reeder - who had already successfully completed her probationary period - over six employees hired after her who had not completed their probationary periods. When questioned by Reeder concerning these facts, Burkholder responded that the decision was done and had been finalized by Whitmore himself. 24. Reeder was never given anything in writing from Manito or its Human Resources Office, confirming that she had, indeed, been furloughed. Count I - Reeder v. Manito Inc. and Whitmore _(Breach of Express Contract) 25. Paragraphs 1-24 of the Complaint are incorporated by reference, as if fully set forth in their entirety. 26. The "Professional Agreement School Year Personnel," appended as Exhibit "A" to the Complaint, is an express contract for employment services for a specified period of time and, accordingly, is outside the at-will doctrine under the common law of Pennsylvania. 27. Both Manito Inc. and Whitmore breached this Agreement by furloughing Reeder without paying her for the 190 days and other "agreement days" for which she was contracted to perform professional services. 28. Reeder has been damaged, as follows: (a) $23,210.46 remaining on basic contract (126 days x $184.21 daily rate); (b) $368.42 for two (2) annual leave days for which she did not receive pay; (c) $2,492.36 for accrued sick leave (101.50 hours) for which she was not paid; and (d) $736.84 for four (4) additional days for which she was not paid for summer training, for a total of $26,808.08. WHEREFORE, it is requested that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against both Defendants jointly as to Count I of the Complaint in the amount of $26,808.08, plus taxable costs and interest. Count II - Reeder v. Manito Inc. and Whitmore (Breach of Contract Implied In Fact) 29. Paragraphs 1-24 of the Complaint are incorporated by reference, as if fully set forth in their entirety. 30. Manito Inc. established policies and procedures governing the furlough of any employees should economic circumstances dictate such a necessity. These policies and procedures were published as part of its Employee Handbook. 31. Manito Inc. established policies and procedures governing the dismissal of any employee who had successfully completed the introductory period. These policies and procedures were published as part of its Employee Handbook. 32. These policies and procedures, which are outlined at paragraphs 16-17 of the Complaint, rose to the level of a contract implied in fact between the parties, Stephanie Reeder and Manito Inc. 33. Manito Inc. and Whitmore breached this contract implied in fact by, a) failing to choose the employee to be furloughed on the basis of those who had not completed their introductory period or were temporary; b) by failing to give Reeder thirty (30) days notice of her furlough; and (c) by failing to have Reeder's furlough considered by and approved by the Personnel Committee of the Board of Directors. 34. in addition, in May, 2007, Manito President and CEO, Robert Whitmore -on behalf of Manito - made an oral covenant with Reeder that she would keep her position until and unless she would voluntarily terminate her own employment. The consideration for this covenant was that Reeder would forego leaving Manito for employment with River Rock Academy through her supervisor, John Deckert. Manito and Whitmore have breached this contract implied in fact/oral contract. In addition, performance of this covenant is protected by the doctrine of promissory estoppel, which is part of the common law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 35. In addition to the relief specified at paragraph 28 above, Reeder requests the award of front pay in the amount of $70,000.00 (two years of front pay), as a result of the covenant detailed at paragraphs 12 and 34 of the Complaint. Reeder had a legitimate expectation that the property interest in her employment would be ongoing and last until she decided to terminate the employment. WHEREFORE, it is requested that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against both Defendants jointly as to Count II of the Complaint, in the amount of $26,808.08, plus an additional $70,000.00 for front pay, together with taxable costs and interest. Count III - Reeder v. Manito Inc. and Whitmore (Wrongful Discharge) 36. Paragraphs 1-24 of the Complaint are incorporated by reference, as if fully set forth in their entirety. 37. The action of Manito and Whitmore in constructively terminating Reeder was tortuous, in that a) she possessed a property interest in her employment which was protected by a written contract for a specified term, taking it outside the at-will doctrine under Pennsylvania common law; b) she possessed a property interest in her employment which was protected from furlough by the covenants and procedures established by Manito for selecting which employees would be furloughed ; and c) she had furnished additional consideration for the Defendants' covenant not to terminate the employment except by her own voluntary act, which also took it outside the Pennsylvania version of the at-will doctrine. 38. Reeder has been damaged in the amounts delineated at paragraphs 28 and 35 of the Complaint. WHEREFORE, it is requested that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Manito Inc. and Whitmore jointly as to Count III of the Complaint in the amount of $26,808.08, plus an additional $70,000.00 for front pay, together with taxable costs and interest. Count IV - Reeder v. Whitmore (Fraud) 39. Paragraphs 1-24 of the Complaint are incorporated by reference, as if fully set forth in their entirety. 40. As set forth at paragraph 21 of the Complaint, Defendant Robert Whitmore acted fraudulently in altering the Employee Manual, by inserting a purported at-will doctrine, to make it appear as if this policy was in effect at the time that Reeder entered into her written contract . 41. In addition, Whitmore completely ignored the policies and procedures governing lay- offs and the protection of employees who had completed their introductory period by treating the corporate entity as his own personal fiefdom. 42. Whitmore's conduct was outrageous, justifying the imposition of a punitive damage award. WHEREFORE, it is requested that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant Whitmore individually as to Count IV of the Complaint in the amount of $26,808.08, plus an additional $70,000.00 for front pay, an award of punitive damages, together with taxable costs and interest. Respectfully submitted, M, Joh11M. Kerr, Esquire I.D. # 26414 Law Office of John M. Kerr, Esquire 5000 Ritter Road Suite 202 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 766-4008 Dated: February 29, 2008 MANITO INC. 7564 Browns Mill Road Chambersburg, PA 17222 717 375-4834 Fax: 375-4067 PROFESSIONAL AGREEMENT SCHOOL YEAWPERSONNEL .This work agreement outlines employment guidelines for School Year Personnel employed by Manito, Inc. Employee: School Year Service Days: 190 + + + + + + + + + + + + + ..... + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + General Conditions: A. School Year Personnel will be available on a full-time schedule (7.5 hours per day) beginning the start of the school year in August, and ending at the completion of the academic year for a total of 190 schoolldevelopment days. B. School Year. Personnel will be. available for staff meetings, preparing classrooms for instruction, professional development, and/or interviewing program students during the week prior to the beginning of the school year, and for completing written reports and attending professional development at the end of the school year. C. Manito staff are required to complete 40 hours of professional development each year. These hours can be completed by: • Manito in-service programs • Graduate studies • Outside conferences or development programs approved by the appropriate Program Coordinator or Division Administrator (School District Act 80 days) • Summer institute development programs provided by Manito or other approved organizations • New employees' are expected to complete five days of orientation and basic skills instruction prior to beginning the school year or within one calendar year of hire date. • All School Personnel are also expected to complete a basic week in Choice Theory within one year from the beginning of employment. D. Special staff meetings or staff development programs held during the summer months or school year counted as part of your schedule. E. If the total days of this agreement are completed by School Year Personnel prior to completion of the school year or staff development days, the employee may request additional days to be approved by the appropriate Program Coordinator or Division 6X?ib;T tt fi IT Administrator. Compensation for the additional time worked will be at the per diem, rate of $100. F. If the total days are not completed within the agreement period designated by your Program Coordinator or Division Administrator, a correction will be made to the last paycheck of the agreement year for the non-completed days. F. School Year Personnel working under this agreement are entitled to receive two days annual leave which must be taken within the agreement period and which are counted as agreement days. Annual leave, may not be carried over to another year and if not used within the agreement period will be forfeited. Annual leave days should be taken prior to April 15 if possible. Holidays will not be counted as agreement days. G. School Year Personnel working under this agreement may accumulate 10 sick days per year and accrue up to a maximum of 60 days. 1. School Year Personnel are paid throughout the calendar year. Personnel who leave employment with Manito before completing the full school year will forfeit any compensation accrued from the beginning of the sdhool year. Employee would essentially become a full-time employee and receive pay only through his/her last day of work. (This does not pertain to employees who are paid hourly wages.) 7. School Year Personnel who leave employment with Manito before the end of the sclvol year agree to not seek employment with any competitor in a similar job capacity wittun Pennsylvania for the remainder. of the current school year. - - Employees are also not permitted to work with a competitor organization while they are employed by Manila. K. If an employee does initiate employment with a competing organization and leave the employment of Manito, said individual may not take any proprietary knowledge or property of Manito Inc.. (Examples would be policy manuals, case record forms, intake information, or staff development programs.) L Employees terminating their employment with Manito Inc. may not solicit other employees to leave Manito to obtain employment with a new organization that is considered a program competitor to Maniito services for a period of at least two years. M. Employees are expected to comply with all conditions and requirements of the Employee Handbook and any amendments thereto shall remain in effect. N. Any employee who does not plan to return for the next school year is requested to notify his/her Program Coordinator by June 1 of this intention. VERIFICATION The undersigned, Stephanie Reeder, hereby states that she is the Plaintiff in the foregoing proceeding and, as such, authorized to execute this Verification, and that any factual statements in the Amended Complaint are true to the best of her knowledge, information and belief. She understands that any false statements are subject to the penalties prescribed at 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to false swearing to authorities. St phanie Reeder STEPHANIE REEDER, Plaintiff V. MANITO INC and ROBERT C. WHITMORE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-591 Civil Term JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby states that he has served a copy of the foregoing, "Amended Complaint," on the below-named individuals in the manner indicated: Via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested Robert C. Whitmore 7564 Brown's Mill Road Chambersburg, PA 17202-9252 Manito Inc. 7564 Brown's Mill Road Chambersburg, PA 17202-9252 Q4 W. 4tv Joh . Kerr, Esquire I.D. # 26414 Law Office of John M. Kerr, Esquire 5000 Ritter Road Suite 202 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 766-4008 Dated: February 29, 2008 t } ^+J t?..7 ; ?7 ?? IL:Y ..J _ ..t.;+a '_.'.i. - __, .,,? .. ' 1 z y'?Y'i _. , i C ; "'? IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STEPHANIE REEDER, Civil Action - Law Plaintiff V. No. 08-591 Civil Term MANITO, INC. and ROBERT C. WHITMORE, : Defendants Jury Trial Demanded NOTICE TO PLEAD To: Stephanie Reeder, Plaintiff You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Preliminary Objections within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully submitted, Date: 3! 2G f o y t J CLvwQ.a 7 James M. Stein, Attorney for Defendants Dick, Stein, Schemel, Wine & Frey, LLP 13 West Main Street, Suite 210 Waynesboro, Pennsylvania 17268 (717) 762-1160 PA Bar No. 84026 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STEPHANIE REEDER, Civil Action - I,aw Plaintiff V. No. 08-591 Civil Term MANITO, INC. and ROBERT C. WHITMORE, Defendants Jury Trial Demanded DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT COME NOW the above named Defendants, by and through their undersigned attorney, and for their Preliminary Objections to the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in the above captioned matter state to the Court as follows: 1. On February 29, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint alleging various causes of action against the Defendants for the Plaintiff's termination of employment with Defendant Manito, Inc. DEMURRER Count I - Breaches Express Contract & Count II - Breach of Contract Implied in Fact 2. In Count I, the Plaintiff purports to sue both Manito, Inc. and Robert C. Whitmore for breach of an alleged employment contract. 3. The claim in Count I is based on the document entitled "Professional Agreement - School Year Personnel," which is attached to the Amended Complaint as Exhibit "A." 4. While the Defendants specifically deny that the document labeled as Plaintiff's Exhibit "A" constitutes an employment contract, and further specifically deny that there was any employment contract in this matter, the action cannot succeed, even if all facts pled in the Complaint are accepted as true. 5. In Pennsylvania, except under the rarest of circumstances, an officer of a corporation cannot be held liable for the breach of a contract between the corporation and another party. Count I of the Amended Complaint, which alleges a simple breach of contract, does not support a cause of action against Mr. Whitmore, who is a corporate officer, since he is not a party to the contract. Count III - Wrongful Discharge 6. In Count III, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants committed the tort of wrongful discharge, while at the same time, in Paragraph 37, alleging that the Plaintiff's employment was protected by a written contract for a specified term, and was outside the at-will doctrine under Pennsylvania common law. 7. Thus, although the Defendants specifically deny that the parties had a contract for a specified term, if such fact is presumed to be true for the purpose of these Preliminary Objections, Count III cannot succeed. Breach of an employment contract is an exception to the at-will doctrine, and is governed by contract law. Pennsylvania Civil Jury Instructions 16.00 and 16.01. Count IV- Fraud Count IV of the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges that Defendant Robert Whitmore acted fraudulently in altering the employee manual. While the Defendants strictly deny this allegation, even if it were true, the Complaint has failed to aver the allegations of fraud -2- with sufficient particularity to allow the Complaint to succeed. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(b). 9. Specifically, the Complaint fails to allege facts which would allow the Plaintiff to recover against the Defendants in each of the six (6) requirements necessary to prove fraud. Pennsylvania Civil Jury Instructions 13.14. 10. Two (2) of those requirements are that the Defendant intended that the Plaintiff rely on the Defendant's misrepresentation, and that the Plaintiff actually relied on the misrepresentation. 11. The Complaint fails to allege that the inclusion of employment at will language in the employee manual was intended to induce the Plaintiff to rely on the representation. 12. In addition, there is no allegation that the Plaintiff actually relied on that allegation to her detriment. 13. Finally, the law requires that the Plaintiff plead and prove that the Plaintiff's reliance on the Defendants' misrepresentation was a factual cause of the harm suffered by the Plaintiff. 14. In this case, the Plaintiff has alleged that the Defendants breached an employment contract. Consequently, language in the employee handbook, even if placed there "fraudulently," could not have caused the harm suffered by the Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, each count of the Plaintiff s Amended Complaint is legally insufficient and must be dismissed. The Defendants respectfully request that the Court do so with prejudice. -3- REQUEST FOR MORE SPECIFIC PLEADING (PLED IN THEALTERNATIVE) 1. - 14. Defendants hereby incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 14 above as if fully set forth herein. 15. In the alternative to the relief requested above, the Defendants reassert that the allegations of fraud have not been pled with sufficient particularity, and thus the Defendants are precluded from preparing an appropriate answer. 16. A more specific pleading is required. WHEREFORE, if the Court denies the Demurrer requested above, the Defendants respectfully request that the Court direct the Plaintiff to file a more specific pleading. Respectfully submitted, Date: ?2 y 0 James M. Stein, Attorney for Defendants Dick, Stein, Schemel, Wine & Frey, LLP 13 West Main Street, Suite 210 Waynesboro, Pennsylvania 17268 (717) 762-1160 PA Bar No. 84026 -4- PROOF OF SERVICE I HEREBY VERIFY that I have served the foregoing document upon counsel of record by depositing one (1) true and correct copy thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: John M. Kerr, Esquire Law Office of John M. Kerr, Esquire 5000 Ritter Road, Suite 202 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Date: 3Z y/0 8 James M. Stein, Attorney for Defendants -5- IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STEPHANIE REEDER, Plaintiff Civil Action - Law V. MANITO, INC. and ROBERT C. WHITMORE, To the Prothonotary: PRAECIPE Please file the enclosed Preliminary Objections and return the time-stamped copies to me in the enclosed envelope. Thank you for your assistance with this matter, and please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns you may have. Respectfully submitted, '312- Date: James M. Stein, Attorney for Defendants Dick, Stein, Schemel, Wine & Frey, LLP 13 West Main Street, Suite 210 Waynesboro, Pennsylvania 17268 (717) 762-1160 PA Bar No. 84026 PROOF OF SERVICE I HEREBY VERIFY that I have served the foregoing document upon counsel of record by depositing one (1) true and correct copy thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: John M. Kerr, Esquire Law Office of John M. Kerr, Esquire 5000 Ritter Road, Suite 202 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Date: 32.s /© S No. 08-591 Civil Term Defendants Jury Trial Demanded aM.ez ni. Sh:? James M. Stein, Attorney for Defendants C°'? ?=; -.. ? ,.?,. -r, _- r^?a „_,t ._ ._? ?:., r ,'t ? a .' : ? -° ; .., C.w: f ? STEPHANIE REEDER, Plaintiff V. MANITO INC and ROBERT C. WHITMORE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-591 Civil Term JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS AND NOW, comes Stephanie Reeder, Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter, by her counsel, John M. Kerr, Esquire, and files the within Answer to Defendants' Preliminary Objections, the nature of which is as follows: 1. ADMITTED. DEMURRER Count I - Breach of Express Contract & Count II - Breach of Contract Implied in Fact 2. ADMITTED. 3. ADMITTED. 4. DENIED. The averment contained at paragraph 4 of Defendants' Preliminary Objections represents a conclusion of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 5. DENIED. At paragraph 4 of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff pleaded that "Manito functions as the alter ego of Whitmore, who ignores corporate policies and boundaries in treating the organization as an extension of himself." Under Pennsylvania law, Plaintiff can pierce the corporate veil and hold an individual responsible for a liability-creating act performed behind the veil of a sham corporation. Count III -Wrongful Discharge 6. ADMITTED in part and DENIED in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff stated, as part of a more specific allegation, the substance of what is stated at paragraph 6 of Defendants' Preliminary Objections. 7. DENIED. Rule 1020(a) & (c) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure expressly permit Plaintiff to plead more than one cause of action or to plead in the alternative. Count IV - Fraud 8. DENIED. Plaintiff has pleaded deceit on Defendant Whitmore's part intentionally practiced to induce another to part with property or some legal right. 9. DENIED. The Complaint furnishes adequate notice to Defendants in order to afford them an opportunity to defend. 10. DENIED. 11. DENIED. 12. DENIED. 13. DENIED. The averment contained at paragraph 13 of Defendants' Preliminary Objections represents a conclusion of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 14.DENIED. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth in its entirety, her answer to paragraph 7 of the Defendants' Preliminary Objections. WHEREFORE, it is requested that the Court dismiss the Preliminary Objections filed by Defendants in their entirety. REQUEST FOR MORE SPECIFIC PLEADING 15. DENIED. The averment contained at paragraph 15 of the Defendants' Preliminary Objections represents a conclusion of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 16.DENIED. The averment contained at paragraph 16 of the Defendants' Preliminary Objections represents a conclusion of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. WHEREFORE, it is requested that the Court deny the Defendants' Request For A More Specific Pleading. Respectfully submitted, Jo M. Kerr, Esquire I. . # 26414 Law Office of John M. Kerr, Esquire 5000 Ritter Road Suite 202 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 766-4008 Dated: April 22, 2008 w STEPHANIE REEDER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 08-591 Civil Term MANITOINC and ROBERT C. WHITMORE, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby states that he has served a copy of the foregoing, "Plaintiff's Answer To Defendants' Preliminary Objections," on the below-named individual in the manner indicated: First Class Mail, Postage Prepaid James M. Stein, Esquire Dick, Stein, Schemel, Wine & Frey, LLP 13 West Main Street, Suite 210 Waynesboro, PA 17268 (;'k W_ lbw Johr(M. Kerr, Esquire I. D. # 26414 Law Office of John M. Kerr, Esquire 5000 Ritter Road Suite 202 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 766-4008 Dated: April 22, 2008 ?a ..? `+7 TY ,t i .% PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: (List the within matter for the next Argument Court.) CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) Stephanie Reeder, Plaintiff Manito, Inc. and Robert C. Whitmore, Civil Term vs. Defendants No.08-591 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Defendants' Demurrer To Complaint and Request For More Specific Pleadinq 2. Identify all counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiffs: John M. Kerr, Esquire Law Office of John M. Kerr, Esquire 5000 Ritter Road, Suite 202 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (Name and Address) (b) for defendants: James M. Stein, Esquire Dick, Stein, Schemel, Wine & Frey, LLP 13 West Main Street, Suite 210 Waynesboro, PA 17268 (Name and Address) 3. 1 will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. x 4. Argument Court Date: May 28, 2008 5ignfure ?6N u 1Y. IKFeC # ..-\ Print your nam Date: 0a4 Aool Attorney for INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Two copies of all briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) before argument. 2. The moving party shall file and serve their brief 12 days prior to argument. 3. The responding party shall file their brief 5 days prior to argument. 4. If argument is continued new briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) after the case is relisted. ? ? 7 t - _) C? ; ?'? ?w' ? _ y_ -t_ _ {:; - -? a'?+.7 .f _ ?a _?_?_ -_ {?: ? SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2008-00591 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND REEDER STEPHANIE VS MANITO INC ET AL R. Thomas Kline Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT to wit: MANITO INC but was unable to locate Them deputized the sheriff of FRANKLIN serve the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE County, Pennsylvania, to On May 6th , 2008 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from FRANKLIN Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Out of County Surcharge Dep Franklin Co Postage So answers 18.00 9.00 10.00 Thomas Kline 56.05 Sheriff of Cumberland County 9 4n J J . Z J 05/06/2008 JOHN M KERR Sworn and subscribe to before me this day of A. D. in his bailiwick. He therefore 5,4?? SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2008-00591 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND REEDER STEPHANIE VS MANITO INC ET AL R. Thomas Kline Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT WHITMORE ROBERT C but was unable to locate Him deputized the sheriff of FRANKLIN serve the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE County, He therefore Pennsylvania, to On May 6th , 2008 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from FRANKLIN Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Out of County .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 .00 16.00 05/06/2008 JOHN M KERR Sworn and subscribe to before me this day of to wit: in his bailiwick. So ?answe ?- R. Thomas Kline Sheriff of Cumberland County S 4/os A. D. In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland Cou0ty, Pennsylvania Stephanie Reeder VS. Manito Inc et al SERVE: Manito Inc No. 08- ?91 civil Now, January 28, 2008 I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do County to execute this Writ, this hereby deputize the Sheriff of Franklin Sheriff of Cumb, land County, PA Please mail return of service to Cumberland County Sheriff. Thank you. Affidavit of Service Now, , 20 , at o'clock M. served the within upon at - I deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. by handing to a and made known to copy of the original the contents thereof. So answers, Sheriff of Sworn and subscribed before me this day of , 20 COSTS SERVICE $ MILEAGE AFFIDAVIT County, PA $ SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR 6 CASIE NO: 2008-00019 T COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF FRANKLIN REEDER STEPHANIE REEDER VS MANITO INC ET AL BRIAN CRAMER Deputy Sheriff of F KLIN County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMP CIVIL ACTION was served upon MANITO INC the DEFENDANT , at 0012:30 Hour, on the 19th day of February , 2008 at 7564 BROWNS MILL ROAD CHAMBERSBURG, PA 17202 by handing to DEANNA DANDERS SEC ASST TRESURER a true and attested copy of COMP CIVIL ACTION together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing .00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge .00 .00 03 JO Sworn and Subscribed to before me this day of &00 A.D. Notarial Seal Rlchard D. MGC.a--?y, Notar' Pub';c Chambessburr Boro, Franklin Count; My Conirlission Exp'res Jan. 29, 2011 So Answers: In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Stephanie Reeder VS. Manito Inc et al 08-?91 civil SERVE : Robert C. Whitmore No. Now, January 28, 2008 , I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Franklin County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. Please mail return of service to Cumberland County Sheriff. Thank you. Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Affidavit of Service Now, 2Q , at 07clock M. served the within upon at by handing to a and made known to copy of the original I the contents thereof. So answers, III Sheriff of County, PA COSTS Sworn and subscribed before SERVICE me this day of , 20 MILEAGE AFFIDAV CASE NO: 2008-00019 T SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COU.'VTY OF FRANKLIN REE DER STEPHANIE REEDER VS MAN ITO INC ET AL BRIAN CRAMER Deputy Sheriff of County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn accord says, the within COMP CIVIL ACTION was se WHITMORE ROBERT C W, the DEFENDANT at 0012:30 Hour, on the 19th day of?February , 2008 at 7564 BROWN'S MILL ROAD CHAMBERSBURG, PA 17202 by handing to DEANNA SANDERS SEC ASST TRESURER a true and attested copy of COMP CIVIL ACTION together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge So Answers: .00 .00 BRIAN CRAMER .00 .00 By sti .00 Deputy herif .00 03/18/2008 JOHN M KERR ESQ Sworn and Subscribed to before me this day of &00 A.D. Notefrial Seal Richard D. McCarty, Notary Public Chambersburg Boro, Franklin County My Commission Expires Jan. 29, 2011 STEPHANIE REEDER, PLAINTIFF V. MANITO, INC. AND ROBERT C. WHITMORE, DEFENDANTS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : 08-0591 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT BEFORE BAYLEY, J. AND EBERT, J. AND NOW, this ORDER OF COURT to+ day of July, 2008, IT IS ORDERED: (1) The preliminary objection of defendant Robert C. Whitmore to the claim against him in Count I of the amended complaint alleging Breach of Express Contract, IS GRANTED. The claim in Count I against defendant, Robert C. Whitmore, IS DISMISSED. (2) The preliminary objection of defendant Robert C. Whitmore to Count IV (fraud) in plaintiff's amended complaint IS GRANTED. Plaintiff may file a more specific count of fraud against Robert C. Whitmore within twenty (20) days of this date which contains all of the factual allegations in support of the cause of action. (3) All other preliminary objections of defendants to plaintiff's complaint, ARE DISMISSED. By the Co Edgar B. Bayley, J. y ..r" V John M. Kerr, Esquire For Plaintiff James M. Stein, Esquire For Defendants :sal ?J? IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STEPHANIE REEDER, Plaintiff Civil Action - Law V. MANITO, INC. and ROBERT C. WHITMORE, To the Prothonotary: PRAECIPE Enclosed for filing please find the Defendants' Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in the above captioned matter. Please file this document and return the time-stamped copies to me in the enclosed envelope. Thank you for your assistance with this matter, and please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns this may cause. Respectfully submitted, Date: le/? 1 ` G8 James M. Stein Attorney for Defendant Dick, Stein, Schemel, Wine & Frey, LLP 13 West Main Street, Suite 210 Waynesboro, Pennsylvania 17268 (717) 762-1160 PA Bar No. 84026 PROOF OF SERVICE I HEREBY VERIFY that I have served the foregoing document upon counsel of record by depositing one (1) true and correct copy thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: John M. Kerr, Esquire Law Office of John M. Kerr, Esquire 5020 Ritter Road, Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Date: Qi?? ``l. James M. Stein, Attorney for Defendants No. 08-591 Civil Term Defendants Jury Trial Demanded t?-i IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STEPHANIE REEDER, Civil Action - Law Plaintiff V. No. 08-591 Civil Term MANITO, INC. and ROBERT C. WHITMORE, : Defendants Jury Trial Demanded DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT COME NOW the above named Defendants, by and through their undersigned attorney, and for their Answer to the Plaintiff s Amended Complaint in the above captioned matter state to the Court as follows: 1. The Defendants deny that the Plaintiff was wrongfully terminated and further deny that she had an employment contract with Defendant Manito, Inc. The Defendants further deny that Defendant Robert C. Whitmore treated the corporate entity as his alter ego. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. The Defendants admit that Robert C. Whitmore is the President and CEO of Manito, Inc. The Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 4 for the reasons set forth below. 5. The Defendants admit that, on June 13, 2007, the Plaintiff executed a document entitled "Professional Agreement School Year Personnel," and that a true copy of that document is attached as Plaintiff's Exhibit "A" to the Complaint. The Defendants deny, however, that this document is properly characterized as a "contract." Although such characterization is a legal conclusion which does not require an answer, the Defendants deny that the document was supported by consideration on both sides, and further deny that the parties had the capacity to enter into an employment contract, or that both parties intended to enter into a contract. 6. The Defendants admit that the document reads as indicated in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint. The Defendants deny, however, that the document was a contract for the reasons set forth herein. 7. The Defendants deny that the document in question was a "contract." The Defendants admit that Paragraphs J, K, L and N of the document read as quoted in the Complaint. 8. Paragraph 8 of the Complaint states legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To the extent that an answer is required, the Defendants deny that the document constituted an employment agreement for a specified term. Rather, the document was simply a set of "employment guidelines for school year personnel employed by Manito, Inc.," as indicated in the very first paragraph of the document. 9. The Defendants admit that Plaintiff had been employed at the Manito, Inc. Cumberland County Center since the 2006-2007 school year. The Defendants deny, however, that Plaintiff worked pursuant to an oral agreement between the parties. Rather, Plaintiff was at all times an employee at will, as set forth in her employment application. A copy of said application is attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof as Defendants' Exhibit "l ." The Defendants further deny that Plaintiff insisted upon a written contractual agreement. Rather, the Defendants created said document as a set of guidelines for all personnel. Finally, -2- although the Defendants deny that they had any obligation to have a policy relating to termination at will, such a policy did and still does exist in the Employee Handbook. 10. Admitted. 11. The Defendants can neither admit nor deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 because said information is within the sole control of the Plaintiff. Strict proof is demanded at trial. 12. The Defendants deny that Plaintiff ever had a conversation with Defendant Whitmore concerning her long-term job stability. Rather, in May, 2007, Defendant Whitmore informed all employees that some guidelines would be presented to them to assist them in understanding the various requirements of their employment. The Defendants specifically deny that Defendant Whitmore ever informed the Plaintiff that "the job is effectively yours until you would resign." 13. Denied. Ms. Burkholder simply evaluated the Plaintiffs job performance and reviewed past evaluations by Deckert in order to reach the conclusion that the Plaintiff could improve in certain areas of her performance. Ms. Burkholder treated the Plaintiff no differently than any other employee. 14. The Defendants deny that Burkholder had never observed Plaintiff in the classroom. Rather, Burkholder had observed Plaintiff on numerous occasions and in numerous settings, just as she had done with other Manito employees. In addition, Ms. Burkholder relied on previous observation reports generated by other Manito staff members. Finally, the Defendants are unaware of a review of Plaintiff's performance dated October 26, 2006, and therefore deny the allegations concerning said review. Strict proof is demanded at trial. -3- 15. Admitted, with the exception that the Defendants deny having used the word "furloughed." 16. Admitted. 17. Admitted. 18. Denied. The Defendants deny that Ms. Burkholder made this statement, although the Defendants admit that employment decisions were based in part on employee evaluations by Ms. Burkholder and other supervisors. 19. Admitted. 20. The Defendants admit that Burkholder informed the Plaintiff that she was printing out the Plaintiff's resume for the Plaintiff's personnel file. The Defendants deny, however, that Burkholder or the Defendants had made any decision at that point. Rather, the Defendants were still evaluating whether Plaintiff would be appropriate for another position within the organization. The Defendants deny that Burkholder had taken any action to cancel Plaintiff's health insurance coverage. 21. Denied. The Employee Handbook has not changed for approximately five (5) years. The allegation that the employees did not agree to the alleged changes in the Employee Handbook assumes a conclusion of law for which no answer is required. To the extent that an answer is required, the Defendants deny that any changes were made, and further deny that they had any obligation to seek the agreement of the employees prior to making any changes. 22. Denied. Rather, on Thursday, November 29, 2007, the Defendants informed Plaintiff that the Defendants were offering to reassign her to another position. The Defendants did not -4- inform the Plaintiff that she was terminated or laid off at that time, but rather requested that she consider their offer and respond to them. The Plaintiff chose not to respond, or return to work, at which time the Defendants terminated her employment. 23. The Defendants deny that they "furloughed" Plaintiff or terminated her employment until she failed to respond to the offer set forth in Paragraph 22 above. In addition, and to the extent that it is relevant, although there were some newer employees than the Plaintiff, those employees filled roles which could not be eliminated. 24. Denied. A copy of the certified letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "2." COUNT I - REEDER V. MANITO. INC. & WHITMORE -BREACH OF EXPRESS CONTRACT 25. No answer required. 26. The allegations contained in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint are legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To the extent that an answer is required, the Defendants deny the allegations for the reasons set forth above. 27. Denied. Both Defendants deny that the document in question is an employment contract. In the alternative, the Defendants deny that they "furloughed" the Plaintiff. Rather, they offered her a reassignment, which she declined to accept. Finally, and in the alternative, the Defendants deny that the document in question prohibits them from terminating an employee based on performance. 28. The Defendants deny that the Plaintiff has been damaged in any way since she chose to leave the employment of the Defendants. The Defendants further deny the calculations set forth in Paragraph 28 and strict proof is demanded at trial. -5- WHEREFORE, the Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny the Plaintiff's request for relief and dismiss her Complaint. COUNT II _- REEDER V. MANITO. INC. & WHITMORE -BREACH OF CONTRACT IMPLIED IN FACT 29. No answer required. 30. Admitted, with the exception that the Defendants have never used the word "furlough." 31. Admitted. 32. The allegations contained in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint are conclusions of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that an answer is required, the Defendants deny the allegations for the reason that the Employee Handbook specifically defines itself as a guide in making personnel decisions and in providing guidance for Manito employees. In addition, the document specifically states that "this handbook is not intended to represent any form of employment contract." 33. The Defendants deny that the Employee Handbook is a contract. Nonetheless, the Defendants deny that they violated the procedure set forth in the Handbook, because Plaintiff was not being laid off. In addition, the Handbook specifies that regular employees will be evaluated based on demonstrated skill and efficiency in performing the job duties available. 34. Denied. The Defendants deny that Defendant Whitmore ever made any type of covenant or promise with the Plaintiff. The invocation of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel is a conclusion of law to which no answer is required. To the extent that an answer is required, the Defendants deny that there was such a promise for the reasons set forth above. -6- 35. Denied. The Defendants deny that the Plaintiff is entitled to any compensation in this matter. At all times during her employment, Plaintiff was informed that her employment was at will. In addition, the Defendants deny that she had any legitimate or reasonable expectation that she could maintain her job until she decided to terminate the employment. Strict proof is demanded at trial. Finally, the Defendants deny that, even if the Plaintiff is entitled to damages, she would be entitled to $70,000.00. Strict proof is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, the Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny the allegations contained in the Plaintiff's Complaint and dismiss the Complaint with prejudice. COUNT III - REEDER v. MANITO INC. & WHITMORE - WRONGFUL DISCHARGE 36. No answer required. 37. Paragraph 37 contains legal conclusions to which no answer is required. To the extent that an answer is required, the Defendants deny the existence of an employment contract for the reasons set forth above, and further deny the existence of any implied contract for the reasons set forth above. 38. Denied for the reasons set forth above. WHEREFORE, the Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny the allegations contained in the Plaintiff's Complaint and dismiss the Complaint with prejudice. COUNT IV- REEDER y WHITMORE - FRAUD 39. No answer required. 40. Denied. The Defendants deny that Defendant Whitmore or anyone else altered the Employee Manual within the past five (5) years. -7- 41. Denied. The Defendants deny that Defendant Whitmore ignored policies and procedures governing layoffs. They further deny that they laid off the Plaintiff, and they further deny that they were obligated to proceed pursuant to the guidelines in the Employee Handbook. 42. Denied for the reasons set forth above. WHEREFORE, the Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny the allegations contained in the Plaintiff's Complaint and dismiss the Complaint with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, Date: 1 Z 6 l o ?GL?-r.oo James M. Stein, Attorney for Defendants Dick, Stein, Schemel, Wine & Frey, LLP 13 West Main Street, Suite 210 Waynesboro, Pennsylvania 17268 (717) 762-1160 PA Bar No. 84026 VERIFICATION We verify that the statements made in the foregoing pleading are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief. We understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S., Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. MANITO, INC. Date: ??l q /0-V 00 g By OPUZ4 00 01. Date: O/o/Zao Q C- l Rob rt C. Whitmore, President & CEO -8- PROOF OF SERVICE I HEREBY VERIFY that I have served the foregoing document upon counsel of record by depositing one (1) true and correct copy thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: John M. Kerr, Esquire Law Office of John M. Kerr, Esquire 5000 Ritter Road, Suite 202 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Date: ?1 2J, (o James M. Stein, Attorney for Defendants -9- Rev. 7-1-03 MANUO INC. 7564 Browns Mill Road Chambersburg, PA 17222 717 375-4834 Fax: 375-4067 APPLICATION.. FOR EMPLOYMENT How Did You Learn About Us? _-Advertisement Friend Employment Agency Other Name R Name 'T Address Nwaher street Cltj• 11I Y?• ?o? CA =1h NtZ? ber( T 1 - ?? rr' ? , _State n - DP code . 70, Social Security Nolmhar . . 0 1 ohz?mi &Uw Are you over the age of 18? Have you ever filed an application with us before? If Yes, give date X Jr. Are you currently. employed? May we contact your present employer? Are you currently on "lay-off" status and subject to recall? Are you prevented from lawfully becoming employed in this country because of Visa or Immigration Status? too o citizenshi or fmmi ation status will be required upon employment.) Have you been convicted of a felony within the last seven years? If Yes, . please explain, Conviction will not necessard disqualify an licant om em 1 meat. Are you physically or otherwise unable to perform the duties of the job for which you are applying? On what date would you be available for work? _ACA-? Are you available to work time *art_time ( )Shift Work ()Temporary WE ARE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER elativ Walk-in am A ? t- (PLEASE PRINT) Rev. 7-1-03 EDUCATION f Elementary High Undergraduate Graduate School School Colle e/LTniversi Professional : School Name & Nekl Oil 916 ff o -! Location - 4 Years Completed 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 A 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Diploma/Degree Study Descn-be Course of ?'//????,, l?? ,? (? (W 'k L` A 1'? y? C.E .11 G -n c Describe any specialized trairiin ` 'i r r Q apprenticeship, skills, & extrit- curricular activities iL ?c{b a V(cs ??d F _ Describe any specialized honors you have received 4 -Ca 64 S7 tik V r `` ? 0 1 1 State any additional it formation you feel may be helpful to us in ' - ! O A ^ ` H I ?•?, ? ?A I.? / 'n C-7 considering our lication Indicate an : foreign languages you canspeak, read and/or write: Fluent Good Fair Speak Read Write List professional, trade, business or civic activities and offices held. You may exclude member-ships which would rFveal x; race,-'rel3 'on, natio .. origin, age, alicestry, handica or other protected.status t ,Ao- IA tA C./ ?<11 ?.. REFERENCES Give three references who are not related to you and are not previous employ ers: NAME ADDRESS Phone# 3. V-M E v i'60 . Rev. 7-1-03 EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE Start with our resent or last 'ob. Include any job-related your P J . military service assignments and volunteer activities. You may exclude organizations which indicate race, color, religion, g nder, nabonal on , handicap or o ter . protected status.. N cl?/1, LA. Jk L.L c- Emp1o 's a Ad Dates Employed Wo?1rk- Performed 14- LA LA?J C ,?? C.Y , ?C? ? F To AJJ ESSMC w T_? Phone No.: 240- 1 o Q 20 D 6 ?EN? -IPA 'em ,p ??-1 Hourl gRate/Salary Reason for Leaving Job Title: 1? Startin FinalLy 10"'UttoF P'Aa?m AM M 4hkkuy A- ?4T-C I \1 G Em'AAploy 's N e & Address Dates Employed n v1 ? ? C= ?p CA L#-Ir From To Phone No.: '724 G 91, 91 T L V 2.0 6 „? i EEr•?r'1 b .. j l`? f Hourly Rate y Job Title. n ?`r? ?/?1 ? Starting Ffiud Final Work Performed . TEc kc;;noc ?--- s l o - s g E 0 r? ?.ri 6 ?. ° rum Reason for Leaving OAJQO? Pof (1)o 0 c 114 to er's Name & Address tom. ?p Dates Employed Work Performed qc V" LA {V t F- V-, l 1v' 1 From To T-JkLt-- SOM Phone No.: 2 S " (/ 1. b 2.0 0 t 00 Hourly Rate/Salary Reason for Leaving Job Title: fE; 1 , Starting Final A C,1 A\, Supervisor. ; ( ? ?• l? ? ' `_ ?' t n ? f Employer's Name & /Address Dates Employed Work Performed To C ?--(? I V /??"..? From 4 N(--3r- A411_ Phone No.: (9" 1 1 Hourly Rate/Salary Reason for Leaving ? Job Title: (-? ' G1 I- Stacking Final u E-V 11 P,,_( 1 I N, Supervisor. ,/t? y? j ?,? l • ?? (Imore space is needed, please continue on a separate sheet of paper.) Have you ever had any job-related training in the United States Military? Yes NO If Yes, please describe XL M ? 11 61 Rev. 7-1-03 SPECIAL SKILLS AND QUALIFICATIONS S ' e special jab-related skills and qualifications acquired from employment or other experiende.' ::57 76? 6j * mo c(/1 1,(AAI- r,6m m I vo (cA-h to ? 1? l (If- ko/fv'Vxkta &,r Un . (CCkAc? OVisv\_:..?? \f S V-0 ? C rJ P1 f -hA l;<1- bAl LA, C. l??iQ ?- 9 ?S wit &,t- VV&?t,k? CA A07X-Atc December 3, 2007 Stephanie Reeder 171 W. North St. Carlisle, PA 17013 Dear Steph, As per our conversation on Nov. 29, 2007, you were to contact myself or Toby Fritz by the end of the work day on Friday, Nov. 30, 2007 regarding your future employment with Manito. I was disappointed that you did not contact us. To complete your employment and receive the remaining pay which would constitute the percentage of your contract work the following items must be turned in by Friday, December 7, 2007 at 2:00 p.m. These items include: • your lesson plan book and grade book for Life Skills, Health and Physical Education; • mid-term grades and comments for each student; • your building keys; • and any Manito resources that you may have at home. Please contact me at 360-9596 to make arrangements for the items to be brought in and for you to pick up your personal items. Sincerely, Susan M. Burkholder, LSW Program Coordinator Cc: Dr. Robert Whitmore, CEO Manito Administration Office Ma r. 14. 2008 2 A AMM N N W. r ITM G flu pamoe fu Owwkd Rae M MO (ed=A t Pee O oat 0 MMM N TON PMW a Fees ? 4 N v kAd CARLISLE MPO CARLISLE. Pennsylvania • 170132935 4134870013 -0098 12/03/2007 (800)275-8777 04:04:23 PM Sales Receipt i Product Sale Unit Final Description Qty Price Price CARLISLE PA 17013 $0.41 Zone-0 First-Class 'Letter ? 0.30 oz. Retdrn Rcpt (Green Card) $2.15 Certified $2.65 Label #i 70070710000322097520 Customer Postage 40.41 Subtotal: _ $4.80 Issue PVI: $4.90 $8.20 5 $8.20 $41.00 Holiday I Knits PSA Bklt Total: $45.80 Paid !.v_ ,? : -? C? "''? t.° ...? ?? -r? -i ?, .._s ...-, M t ?- ? - -- ,_.. ?, PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Please list the following case: © for JURY trial at the next term of civil court. ? for trial without a jury. CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) STEPHANIE REEDER VS. MANITO INC AND ROBERT C. WHITMORE VS. (Plaintiff) (Defendant) (check one) F1 Civil Action - Law ? Appeal from arbitration (other) The trial list will be called on 8 / 2 5 / 0 9 and Trials commence on 9 / 21 / 0 9 Pretrials will be held on 9 / 2 / 0 9 (Briefs are due S days before pretrials 08-591 . civil Term Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe: John M Kerr 5020 Ritter Road, Suite 109, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: James M. Stein 13 West Main Street, Suite 210 Waynesboro, PA 17268 This case is ready for trial. Date:-7/31 /09 Signed: Print Name: !Bill M Ic'K,eiP Attorney for: Stephanie Reeder Cu'J OF TFIL?? Guy: i- ASP LSO ??( ` G? `.y IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STEPHANIE REEDER, Civil Action - Law Plaintiff V. No. 08-591 Civil. Term MANITO, INC. and ROBERT C. WHITMORE, Defendants Jury Trial Demanded MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT COME NOW the above named Defendants, by and through their undersigned attorney, and for their Motion for Summary Judgment state to the Court as follows: 1. On February 29, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against the Defendants, alleging one (1) count of breach of an express employment contract by both Defendants, one (1) count of breach of a contract implied in fact against both Defendants, one (1) count of wrongful discharge against both Defendants, and one (1) count of fraud against Defendant Robert Whitmore. 2. Thereafter, the Defendants filed Preliminary Objections in the nature of a demurrer regarding all counts. 3. Following briefing and oral argument, this Court granted the Preliminary Objections in part and denied them in part. Specifically, the Court dismissed Count I against Defendant Robert Whitmore, and also gMAed the Preliminary Objections with regard to Count IV, allowing the Plaintiff to file a more specific count of fraud against Robert Whitmore within twenty (20) days of July 10, 2008. 4. The Plaintiff then declined to f},p any additional or amended complaints. 5. Consequently, Count IV is dismissed as well. 5. Thus, the remaining counts are: Count I - Breach of Express Contract Against Manito, Inc.; Count II - Breach of Implied Contract Against Both Defendants; Count III - Wrongful Termination Against Both Defendants. Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Count HAgainst Robert Whitmore 7. Although the Court did not elaborate on its decision regarding the Preliminary Objections, undersigned counsel assumes that the Court accepted the Defendants' argument that one cannot be liable for a breach of contract unless one is a part to the contract. Electron EnerQv Corp. v. Short , 597 A.2d 175 (Pa. Super. 1991). Consequently, the same logic applies for Count lI against Defendant Whitmore. If he was not a parry to the alleged express contract, neither can he be a party to the contract implied in fact. Even if he made the alleged promise that Ms. Reeder could keep her position until and unless she would voluntarily terminate her own employment, said alleged offer was made on behalf of the corporation, and not on behalf of Dr. Whitmore himself. Consequently, he cannot be liable for a breach of the alleged contract. See Electron Energy Cora., supra. 8. In addition, the parties have completed discovery, and the Plaintiff has produced no evidence to indicate that Dr. Whitmore intended to enter into any contract with the Plaintiff on his own accord. WHEREFORE, the Defendants respectfully request that the Court dismiss Count II against Defendant Robert Whitmore as being legally insufficient to sustain a claim against him. -2- Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Counts I. II & III Against All Defendants 1. - 8. Defendants hereby incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 8 above as if fully set forth herein. 9. In Count I of the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that she was working pursuant to an express contract with Defendant Manito, Inc., based on a document entitled "Professional Agreement- School Year Personnel." See Plaintiff's Complaint, Exhibit "A." A copy of said exhibit is also attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof as Exhibit "L" 10. Although the Plaintiff has characterized the document in question as a "contract," it is clear that the parties did not intend for the document to be a contract. 11. Specifically, the document does not contain any provisions with regard to the amount or rate of pay for the employee. Through discovery, the Plaintiff admitted reading and signing her application for employment, which specifically states that "unless otherwise defined by applicable law, any employment relationship with this organization is of an `at-will' nature, which means that the employee may resign at any time and the employer may discharge employee at any time with or without cause. It is further understood that this `at-will' employment relationship may not be changed by any written document or by conduct unless such change is specifically acknowledged in writing by unauthorized [sic] executive of this organization." A copy of said application is attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof as Exhibit "2." 12. The Plaintiff has provided no evidence that would overcome the strong presumption for at-will employment. Specifically, she has provided no written evidence that any authorized executive of Manito, Inc. intended to alter the at-will nature of the employment relationship that -3- she acknowledged when she signed her application which is attached as Exhibit "2." Such written evidence was required by the application that Ms. Reeder signed and which is attached as Exhibit "2." 13. By signing the "Professional Agreement - School Year Personnel," which Ms. Reeder signed almost one (1) year after she began her employment with Manito, Ms. Reeder was not entering into a contract for any specified term with the school. Rather, she was accepting certain guidelines set forth by the employer as a condition of her continued at-will employment. To wit, the first sentence of the document specifically states that "this work agreement outlines employment guidelines for school year personnel employed by Manito, Inc." 14. In her deposition, Ms. Reeder testified that it was not her understanding that she would need to renegotiate the "Professional Agreement - School Year Personnel" for the next school year. Deposition of Stephanie Reeder, page 52, lines 8 - 24. 15. Without any proof that the parties intended to alter the at-will employment relationship which is both implied in the law and was clearly established when Ms. Reeder accepted employment with Manito, Inc., neither her breach of contract claims nor her wrongful termination claim can succeed as a matter of law. WHEREFORE, the Defendants respectfully request that the Court enter summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff s Complaint with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, Date: James M. Stein, Attorney for Defendants Dick, Stein, Schemel, Wine & Frey, LLP 13 West Main Street, Suite 210 Waynesboro, Pennsylvania 17268 (717) 762-1160 PA Bar No. 84026 -4- VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing pleading are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S., Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. J cL" A... Date: ?I'L-s p James M. Stein, Attorney for Defendants PROOF OF SERVICE I HEREBY VERIFY that i have served the foregoing document upon counsel of record by hand delivering one (1) true and correct copy thereof as follows: John M. Kerr, Esquire Law Office of John M. Kerr 5020 Ritter Road, Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Date: g/ -S 'i o+n'vA4-D ?11 J James M. Stein, Attorney for Defendants -5- •. 7564 Browns Mill Road Chambersburg, PAN 17222 717 375-4834 Fax: 375-4067 PROFESSIONAL AGREEMENT SCHOOL YEAR-PERSONNEL This work agreE mei it outlines employment guidelines for School Year Personnel employed by M; tnct(:), Inc. Employee: s ,??niP /d2r- School Year Service Days: 190 General Condit ion:: A. School Year F ersonnel-will be available on a full-time schedule-{7.5 hour-_ per day) beginning the ;tart of the school year in August, and ending at the completon of the academic yeas for a total of 190 schooUdevelopment days. B. School Year F ersonnel will be.available for staff meetings, preparing dassroo too instruction, pr )fessional development, and/or interviewing program students duri the week prioi to the beginning of the school year, and for completing written reports and attending professional development at the end of the school year. C. Manito staff a e required to complete 40 hours of professional development each year. These hours can be completed by: • Ma nito in-service programs • Gr iduate studies • Ou I:side conferences or development programs approved by the apl,ropriate Program Coordinator or Division Administrator (School District Act 80 days) • Su; nmer institute development programs provided by Manito or other approved organizations • Ne;w employees are expected to complete five days of orientation am bar is skills instruction prior to beginning the-school .year or within or;e cal,:mdar year-of We date. + All !3chool Personnel are also expected to complete a basic week in Ch lice Theory within one year from the beginning of employment. D. Special staff meetings or staff development programs held during the summer months or school year a counted as part of your schedule. E. If the total day;:; of this agreement are completed by School Year Personnel prior- completion of the school year or staff development days, the employee may requak additional day;, to be approved by the appropriate Program Coordinator or Divis ------------- a1RACjCA 's Exk; b; f- Administrator. Compensation for the additional time worked will be at the per diem rate of $100. F. If the total days are not completed within the agreement period designated by your Program Coordinator or Division Administrator, a correction will. be made to the last paycheck of the agreement year for the non-completed days. F. School Year Personnel working under this agreement are entitled to receive two days annual leave which must be taken within the agreement period and which are counted as agreement days. Annual leave; may not be carried over to another year and if not used within the agreement period will be forfeited. Annual leave days should be taken prior to April 15 if possible. Holidays will not be counted as agreement days. G. School Year Personnel working under this agreement may accumulate 10 sick days per year and accrue up to a maximum of 60 days. I. School Year Personnel are paid throughout the calendar year. Personnel who leave employment with Manito before completing the full school year will forfeit any compensation accrued from the beginning of the school year. Employee would essentially become a full-time employee and receive pay only through his/her last day of work. {This does not pertain to employees who are paid hourly wages.) J. School Year Personnel who leave employment with Manito before the end of the school year agree to not seek employment with any competitor in a similar job capacity within Pennsylvania for the remainder. of the current school year. - - Employees are also not perthitted to work vi?ith a competitor organization while they are employed by Manito. K. If an employee does initiate employment with a competing organization and leave the employment of Manito, said individual may not take any proprietary knowledge or property of Manito Inc.. (Examples would be policy manuals, case record forms, intake information, or staff development programs.) L. Employees terminating their employment with Manito Inc. may not solicit other employees to leave Manito to obtain employment with a new organization that is considered a program competitor to Manito services for a period of at least two years. M. Employees are expected to comply with all conditions and requirements of the Employee Handbook and any amendments thereto shall remain in effect, N. Any employee who does not plan to return for the next school year is requested to (1 notify his/her Program Coordinator by June 1 of this intention. 3 Emplby e' l Program /Coordinator Date ate M Rev. 7-1-03 A ANTTO INC. 7564 Browns Mill Road Chambersburg, PA 17222 717 375-4834 Fax: 375-4067 APPLICATION .FOR EMPLOYMENT ¦ Maui's ¦ Date of Applic do Relativ L it' I H A 4 T7 - f? Name Middle am A ®l- A- ? AK How Did You Learn About UO Advertisement ' . Frii LgAt Name Address Number Street 11? W. . N 0 " r city state Zip Code CA??'? PrA FI P Social Security N er Are you over the age of 18? Have you ever filed an application with us before? If Yes, give date Are you currently employed? May we contact your present employer? Are you currently on "lay-off" status and subject to recall? Are you prevented from- lawfully becoming employed in this country because of Visa or Immigration Status? or inmi anon status will be required upon employment.) Have you been convicted of a felony within the last seven years? If vest please explain. Conviction will not necessarily disquali Are you physically or otherwise unable to perform the duties of the job for which you are applying? On what date would you be available for work? A _ Are you available to work: Full-time Part time ( )Shift Work ()Temporary WE ARE AN EQUAL OPPORiUNI7Y EMPLOYER Rev. 7-1-03 . EDUCATION Elementary School Hi School Undergraduate Graduate Colle e[Universi Professional ! School Name & C\ q l r- ICS . 0j T 'I Location Years Completed 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 Di Ioma/De ee Describe Course of Study C p aining, Describe any specialize Q 91 L,t- -.1 Jim r` MEN " apprenticeship, skills, & urricular activities c i! O 1(. 1 ,? q ..'?C .6 Q ?I ° VZ4 0 461 ? Describe any specialized honors you : 1?? rTt ?/ t f- r Li _ y . ?,I L %Q ?" TZ V have received - State any additional information you feel maybe helpful to us in 6" - A ? W ??Q A 1 TR I V? considering our application TnA;natP anv fnrP;an lanuiiaarec von can snealc read and/or write: G Crl: ?C'? M Fluent Good Fair kS p ak % d Write ? List professional, trade, business or civic activities and offices held. You may exclude member-ships which W3d on ' ,age, cesti'y, o handicap or othe protected.status would r veal j?r ace ;"reli 'on, natio j w, ACM ?- G" REFERENCES Grive three references who are not related to vou. and are not previous employers: NA ?iE : ADDRESS Phone# TIV 2.Y L. O A t FCS(c4-- - I ice' - Rev. 7-1-03 EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE Start with your presentor last job. Include any job-related military service assignments and volunteer activities. You may exclude organizations which indicate race, color, religion, gridTonal on , handicap or other protected status.?-1 L'?? i N. C, ?1 ?-'. +? uk, C;' ' z r SYC Emplo er's N e & Ad` Dates Employed Work Performed -{- rl. v v" .,? ?C1 t- I } 11 From To A,?S??S/?i? Phone No.: ry Q 26 O f f- U? Ca i Hourly Rate/Salary Reason for Leaving Job Title: Starting Final` A7 e ? LACE "1`' ?Q INI Employ 's Name & Address Dates Employed n L? ? ? CA tAtllq From To Phone No.: IP+ `/ L/ 2Z 0 1 Hourly Rate/Salary Job Title 6 ??? Starting Final Work Performed it +- REV c 01fi Reason for Leaving X r? Em to er's Name & Address Dates Employed Work Performed _ T? " Uk I V 1 1~? lv' 1 From To V 20 Phone No.: 2 Hourly Rate/Salary Reason for Leaving Job Title: ? Starting Final rJ ` y? AN Supervisor: . Employer's Name & Address Dates Employed S c j? ? q ? ?clr'" From To . Phone No.: U o _ Hourly Rate/Salary Job Title: OA-,?k? ? Starting Final Supervisor: i Wf " / ??? y ?? ?? Work Performed' refn L- C,kM` ? A An Reason for Leaving C-all -,tt, ?,- (If more space is needed, please continue on a separate sheet ofpapeJr.) Have you ever had any job-related training in the United States Military? Yes No / j . If Yes, please describe 777"` Rev. 7-1-03 SPECIAL SKILLS AND QUALIFICATIONS Summ ' e special job-related skills and qualifications acquired from employment or other experience.' M[AtA C tO fiL-O s VJDV-(- C?W&'-'flw Gw 2?? FILE ','-r .'t of T? c }',-..:' ,r.>4,,')T Y 10B9 AUG 2 5 I is 0 L PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate.) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: (List the within matter for the next Argument Court.) CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) Stephanie Reeder, Plaintiff vs. Manito, Inc. and Robert C. Whitmore, Defendants No. 08-591 Civil Term 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiffs motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 2. Identify all counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiffs: John M. Kerr, Esquire Law Office of John M. Kerr, Esquire 5000 Ritter Road, Suite 202 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (b) for defendants: James M. Stein, Esquire Dick, Stein, Schemel, Wine & Frey, LLP 13 West Main Street, Suite 210 Waynesboro, PA 17268 3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days taht this case has been listed for argument. X 4. Argument Court Date: October 14, 2009 Date: '/z ` /O q > James M. Stein, Attorney for Defendants CA /AL, OF THE PRC)'( .0. MARY 2009 AUG 27 PH 4: 42 STEPHANIE REEDER, Plaintiff v MANITO INC., AND ROBERT C. WHITMORE, Defendants No. 11 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW 08-591 CIVIL TERM IN RE: CASE TO REMAIN ON LIST ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 25th day of August, 2009, upon consideration of the call of the civil trial list with respect to the above-captioned case, and counsel for the Plaintiff in the person of John M. Kerr, Esquire, having called the case for trial, and counsel for the Defendant in the person of James M. Stein, Esquire, having indicated his objection to the call of the case on the ground that he would like to file a motion for summary judgment, and it appearing that the last incident of discovery in the case was in January of this year, the case will remain on the trial list. By the Court, /John M. Kerr, Esquire 5020 Ritter Road Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 For Plaintiff Ames M. Stein, Esquire 13 West Main Street Suite 210 Waynsboro, PA 17268 Court Administrator :mae OF THE r,.€ 2009 AUG 31 A 11: 0 9 STEPHANIE REEDER, Plaintiff V. MANITO INC and ROBERT C. WHITMORE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 08-591 Civil Term JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE TO THE PROTHONTARY: Kindly discontinue the above-captioned matter and mark the docket, "settled and discontinued, with prejudice." Respectfully submitted, ?] Lw OffiQ of l?ohn M.err 5020 Potter Road State 109 McChOniCSburg, PA 170SS PHoNF: 717.766.4008 Fnx: 717.766.4066 Dated: October 30, 2009 - (zc, ;# &Z 1o M. Kerr, Esquire Attorney I.D. #26414 Law Office of John M. Kerr 5020 Ritter Road Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 766-4008 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby states that he has served a copy of the foregoing, "Praecipe To Discontinue," on the below-named individual in the manner indicated: VIA FIRST-CLASS MAIL James M. Stein, Esquire Dick, Stein, Schemel, Wine & Frey, LLP 13 West Main Street Suite 210 Waynesboro, PA 17268 -am W. Az J en M. Kerr, Esquire Law Office of John M. Kerr 5020 Ritter Road Suite 109 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (717) 766-4008 Dated: October 30, 2009 go!!; M. err 5020 Ritter Road Suite 109 McCharIICSbUr$, PA 17055 Priom: 717.766.4005 FAX: 717.766.4066 OF TP7 2009 OCT ?0 P l;: 0 1