HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-06636 (2)
MICHAEL J. BARNDT, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. : CIVIL ACTION
:
CAMP HILL SCHOOL DISTRICT, :
Defendant : NO. 2020-06636 CIVIL TERM
THE PLEADINGS
*
BEFORE PLACEY and SMITH, JJ.
OPINION and ORDER OF COURT
PLACEY, J., May 26, 2021.
Plaintiff as a track and field coach, Plaintiff has sued the school district for breach of
1
enrichment.
2
Pleadings.
3
Oral argument on the motion was held on May 14, 2021. For the reasons stated
in this opinion, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
4
is Michael J. Barndt, an adult individual residing in York County, Pennsylvania.
Defendant is the Camp Hill School District, with offices in Cumberland County,
5
Pennsylvania.
*
HYAMS, J., did not participate in the consideration of disposition of this case.
1
2
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings).
3
See Praecipe for Listing Case for Argument, filed April 12, 2021.
4
5
1
2020-06636 CIVIL TERM
From 1990 through the 2018-2019 school year, Plaintiff was employed annually
6
by Defendant as head track and field coach. In this regard, the parties most recently
entered into a written contract for the 2018-2019 school year, similar to previous
78
agreements, executed on February 28, 2019, and reading as follows:
CAMP HILL SCHOOL DISTRICT
Extra-Duty Contract
2018-19
I, Michael Barndt, agree to fulfill the duties of the position of Track and
Field, Head Coach for the 2018-19 school year at a remuneration of
$4687.00. S
I understand and agree that this contract shall terminate at the end of the
school year set forth above. I further understand and agree that this
contract shall not be subject to tenure or any contract of employment
pertaining to tenure pursuant to the Public School Code of 1949 as
9
amended.
Following receipt of an outstanding evaluation from the administration at the end
10
of the 2019 track and field season,
11
school principal at an end-of-year sports banquet, Plaintiff proceeded to perform
the following 2019-2020 school year:
9. . . . \[D\]uring the summer and fall of 2019, \[Plaintiff\] received
many emails from his supervisor, \[ ,
concerning everything from equipment concerns, scheduling for 2020,
home meet management for 2020, and the like.
10. During the summer and fall of 2019, \[Plaintiff\] also stopped in to
the Camp Hill High School to get his track related mail and he would meet
with \[the athletic director\]. During these visits, \[Plaintiff\] would also stop
6
7
8
9,
subsequent to a signing on behalf of Defendant on February 19, 2019. Id., Exhibit
9
10
11
2
2020-06636 CIVIL TERM
week before Thanksgiving vacation in 2019 without any indication that
\[Plaintiff\] would not be retained for the 2020 season.
11. Following the 2019 Track and Field season, during the summer
and fall of 2019, with the full knowledge and approval of \[the athletic
director\] and \[the principal\], \[Plaintiff\] continued to perform the duties of
Head Track and Field Coach as would relate to the 2020 season.
12. The duties \[Plaintiff\] performed in anticipation of the 2020
season related, in part, to an indoor component, which had been part of
involved practices and competitions at PIAA sanctioned events. In the fall
of 2019, \[Plaintiff\] had several meetings with \[the athletic director\]
concerning the indoor schedule of meets, permission slips and physicals,
practice times and facilities. He also had two meetings with the students in
or about November 2019 to hand out permission slips, practice times,
schedules and so on. . . .
13. Additionally, in the summer and fall of 2019, \[Plaintiff\] retained
keys and access to Camp Hill borough facilities which were only provided
to him because of his status and standing as Head Track and Field Coach
for \[Defendant\]
deactivated in June 2019 was also reactivated in August 2019.
14. \[As of\] December 16, 2019, . . . \[Plaintiff\] had performed
significant duties related to the 2020 Track and Field season, as detailed
12
above . . . .
13
A practice scheduled for December 16, 2019, was canceled by \[the principal\],
and on or about that date \[Plaintiff\]
14
retained as Head Track and Field Coach for the 2019-2020 school year . . . In this
nated from his position . . . for the 2020 season,
15
16
-in-fact
equal to the time value of the work he
12
-14.
13
14
15
16
See
Pleadings, at 5, filed March 31, 2021.
3
2020-06636 CIVIL TERM
17
performed on behalf of \[Defendant\];
18
Payment and Collection Law; and (c) a count for unjust enrichment, requesting
19
activity related to the 2019-2020 school year was voluntary on the part of Plaintiff and
20
not contractual in nature, that the contractual relationship between the parties had
21
terminated at the end of the 2019-2020 school year, on June 30, 2019, and that
22
Defendant had had a sound basis for choosing not to renew its contract with Plaintiff.
sub judice was filed on March
-of-
formation of the \[purported\] contract, whether the parties had a meeting of the minds, or
23
that he performed all of the duties of Head Track and Field Coach that were contracted
such, he has suffered no
24
damages . . .
25
With respect
, inter alia, that the claim is unsustainable in the
17
-25.
18
-30.
19
-33.
20
, ¶__).
21
-41.
22
-36, 38.
23
24
25
4
2020-06636 CIVIL TERM
26
presence of a written or express contract, that the doctrine of unjust enrichment does
27
not contemplate remuneration for unsought, volunteered services, and that no benefits
to be conferred upon Defendant by a potential engagement of
28
future had accrued.
29
have been well supported by briefs;
30
STATEMENT OF LAW
Judgment on the pleadings. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1034 provides
that,
31
Where a defendant
is moving for judgment on the pleadings, the averments in its answer must
be ign
taken as true.
Steiner v. Bell of Pennsylvania, 426 Pa. Super. 84, 89, 626 A.2d 584, 587 (1993)
(citation omitted).
32
and such a
Schnee v. Springwood Gardens, Inc., 53 Delaware Co. 141, ___, 38 Pa. D. & C.2d 248,
251, 1965 WL 8206, at 2 (1965) (citation omitted).
Contract implied in fact. contract implied in fact can be found by looking to the
. . . Offer and acceptance need not be
26
-32.
27
36.
28
-34.
29
1
Pleadings, filed March 31, 2021.
30
at 4 n.1, filed March 31, 2021.
31
Pa. R.C.P. 1034(a).
32
Kote v. Bank of New York Mellon, 2017 PA Super 277, ¶__, 169 A.3d 1103, 1107.
5
2020-06636 CIVIL TERM
identifiable and the moment of formation need not be pinpointed. Implied\[-in-fact\]
contracts arise under circumstances which, according to the ordinary course of dealing
and the common understanding of men, show a mutual intention to Ingrassia
Construction Company v. Walsh, 337 Pa. Super. 58, 67, 486 A.2d 478, 483 (1984)
(citations omitted).
A contract implied in fact has the same legal effect as any other
contract. It differs from an express contract only in the manner of its
formation. An express contract is formed by either written or verbal
communication. The intent of the parties to an implied in fact contract is
inferred from their acts in light of the surrounding circumstances.
Id. at 67 n.7, 486 A.2d at 483 n.7 (citation omitted)
parties to a contract, it is their outward and objective manifestations of assent, as
Id. at 66, 486 A.2d at
483.
that
33
does not accord a school district
3435
the status of an employer for purposes of the act is not disputed by Plaintiff. See
Philipsburg-Osceola Education Association v. Philipsburg-Oceola Area School District,
159 Pa. Cmwlth. 124, 633 A.2d 220 (1993) (school district held not subject to duties of
employer under Wage Payment and Collection Law).
Unjust enrichment. The elements of a cause of action for unjust enrichment are
deniChesney v. Stevens, 435 Pa. Super. 71, 77 n.4, 644 A.2d 1240, 1243 n.4
(1994). A claim based upon unjust enrichment (sometimes referred to as a quasi-
3637
contract claim) is dependent not upon the existence of an enforceable contract, but
33
43 P.S. §§260.1 et seq.
34
See
March 15, 2021.
35
See
Pleadings, at 4 n.1, filed March 31, 2021.
36
See Pratter v. Penn Treaty American Corporation, 11 A.3d 550, 556 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2010).
6
2020-06636 CIVIL TERM
38
upon equitable principles which warrant the imposition of a contract implied in law. For
example, it was said in McGaffic v. City of New Castle, 973 A.2d 1047, 1055 n.10) (Pa.
-contract applies where a
municipality . . . has voluntarily accepted and retained the benefits of a contract which it
had the power to make but which was defective in the method of its execution and
A claim for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, even though inconsistent,
may be pled in separate counts of a complaint. See Pa. R.C.P. 1020(a), (c) (causes of
action are to be pled in separate counts, and may be pled in the alternative).
of action that are inconsistent are permitted so long as they are pleaded at separate
Lugo v. Farmers Pride, Inc., 2009 PA Super 5, ¶16, 967 A.2d 963, 970
(sanctioning pleading of claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment in separate
counts of same complaint).
APPLICATION OF LAW TO FACTS
In the present case,
cannot
respect to that claim will be granted.
accepted a
the court will afford Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt at this stage of the proceedings and
deny the request for judgment on the pleadings.
With respect to Defendantmotion as i
a contract implied in fact, it appears to the court at least arguable that activities allegedly
performed by Plaintiff after the term of the 2018-2019 school year contract had
ended were expected to be encompassed by the compensation package of the
37
See Sevast v. Kakouras, 591 Pa. 44, 53 n.7, 915 A.2d 1147, 1153 n.7 (2007)
(distinguishing quasi-
38
See Pratter v. Penn Treaty American Corporation, 11 A.3d 550, 556 (Pa. Cmwlth.
-in-
7
2020-06636 CIVIL TERM
-of-fact could infer, from the circumstances
alleged, an intent of the parties that Plaintiff be compensated for these activities, and
consequently that a contract implied in fact to that effect had been formed.
With respect to Plaintiffthe pleading of this cause
of action in one count of the complaint containing a separate breach-of-contract count
was procedurally permissible, notwithstanding that such claims are not legally
consistent. Furthermore, whether the benefits allegedly conferred by Plaintiff upon
Defendant in the absence of a signed contract can be fairly characterized as
volunteered appears to the court to be a question of fact, not properly disposed of at this
preliminary stage of the case. Finally, inasmuch as the doctrine of unjust enrichment is
equitable in nature, and the elements of the cause of action are rather broadly
injustice,it cannot fairly be said that,
without doubt, Plaintiff terms of its allegations of unjust
enrichment.
For the foregoing reasons, the following order of court will be entered:
ORDER OF COURT
th
AND NOW, this 26 day of May, 2021, after careful
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed March 15, 2021, and for the reasons stated
in the accompanying opinion, the motion is granted omplaint
(Violation of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law), judgment is entered
motion is otherwise denied.
BY THE COURT,
______________________
Thomas A. Placey, C.P.J.
Larry A. Weisberg, Esq.
WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C.
Suite B
2704 Commerce Drive
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Attorney for Plaintiff
8
2020-06636 CIVIL TERM
Sarah L. Doyle, Esq.
STOCK AND LEADER, P.C.
Suite E600
Susquehanna Commerce Center
221 West Philadelphia Street
York, PA 17401
Attorney for Defendant
9