Appellant v. St. Joseph’s Preparatory Sch., 2024 Pa. Super. LEXIS 365 (Pa. Super., filed August 23,2024) (Lane, J.)
Lawsuit by prep school employee. The Court found that a defamation claim was sufficient and should have gone to the jury. The contract was at will. PO should not have been granted on the defamation claim and hence, the case is sent back for that. The employment handbook did not modify the at will employment. Person can be fired for any reason, or no reason – although, they might have a defamation claim. Jury properly charged on the enforceability of the employment handbook. But interestingly the matter of the handbook did go to a jury.
Pertinently, we hold the allegations averred in Morrissey’s complaint pleaded a defamation claim sufficient to endure preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer.
We thus conclude that Morrissey is entitled to relief on his first issue. We reverse the portion of the August 7, 2020, order that sustained, in part, the Defendants’ preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer and dismissed Morrisey’s defamation claim against Petruzzelli. We remand for further proceedings limited to this defamation claim.
At trial, Morrissey sought to show, consistent with his argument on appeal, that the APP or the Handbook (which incorporated the APP) constituted such an agreement. However, the above two provisions in the Handbook — that nothing in the Handbook was designed to modify the at-will employment, and that the Prep reserved the right to revise, add, or cancel policies without advance notice weighed against a directed verdict in his favor.
That’s not a presumption. It’s something you have to determine. N.T., 5/26/23, at 144-45. We hold this instruction “clearly and accurately presented the concepts of the legal issue to the jury.” For the foregoing reasons, we conclude no relief is due on Morrissey’s third issue. In sum, we reverse the portion of the trial court’s August 7, 2022, order that dismissed, on preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, Morrissey’s defamation claim against Petruzzelli. We remand for further proceedings on the defamation claim.
We affirm the remaining portions of the order and judgment entered.
