Rockwell v. Allegheny Health, Educ. & Research, Civil Action No. 98-CV-2204.

• Decision Date: 10 September 1998
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 98-CV-2204.
• Parties: Paul ROCKWELL, Plaintiff, v. ALLEGHENY HEALTH, EDUCATION & RESEARCH FOUNDATION and Gloria F. Donnelly, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

19 F.Supp.2d 401

Paul ROCKWELL, Plaintiff, v. ALLEGHENY HEALTH, EDUCATION & RESEARCH FOUNDATION and Gloria F. Donnelly, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 98-CV-2204.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

September 10, 1998.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Salmanson & Falcao, LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.

Gollatz, Griffin & Ewing, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOYNER, District Judge.

Plaintiff, Paul Rockwell ("Plaintiff" or "Rockwell"), has brought this action against Defendants, Allegheny Health, Education and Research Foundation ("the Foundation"), under Count I for violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), and Gloria F. Donnelly ("Defendant" or "Donnelly") under Count II for defamation pursuant to 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 8343. Before this Court is Defendant Donnelly's Motion to Dismiss Count II pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, the motion is denied.

Background

Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Plaintiff was employed by the Foundation on and off from March 1993 through March 7, 1997. His last assignment was as an administrative assistant in the School of Nursing. Plaintiff was the only male in a support staff position, and throughout his employment was treated differently than similarly situated female employees by, but not limited to, the support staff Manager and the Defendant, Dean of the school, Dr. Gloria F. Donnelly.

Plaintiff continually rejected sexual advances by the support staff Manager. As a result, the support staff Manager attempted to damage his reputation among co-employees and supervisors. In spite of these efforts his two direct supervisors gave him exceptional ratings for his job performance. They defused attempts by the support staff Manager to have the Plaintiff dismissed, making it clear that they viewed him as a valuable employee and would not support any allegations against him. It was at this time that the Defendant, Dr. Donnelly, was appointed as the new Dean.

After an initial period where the Defendant recognized Plaintiff's strong work performance, Plaintiff experienced several career setbacks, coinciding with a non-stop campaign by the support staff Manager to convince the Defendant to terminate him. For example, because of treatment for Hodgkin's Disease, Plaintiff occasionally missed work. Both the support staff Manager and the Defendant questioned these absences. His two direct Supervisors maintained that Plaintiff's record of attendance was justified. It followed that the Supervisors became increasingly subject to questioning, verbal attacks and retaliation for their support of Plaintiff. During this period, Plaintiff filed several internal complaints claiming he was the subject of discriminatory misconduct. Plaintiff also filed a complaint with Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations (PCHR). The Defendant ignored the concerns Plaintiff raised in his complaints.

During a meeting with Plaintiff's two direct Supervisors to discuss Plaintiff's complaint filed with the PCHR, the Defendant stated that Plaintiff was "sick" and "vindictive," implied that he was having an inappropriate affair with one of the Supervisors, and accused him of abusing his sick time and time off. The two direct Supervisors disputed the Defendant's assertions and one of them became so traumatized by the continual attacks that she took a leave of absence.

As a result of continued discrimination and retaliation against the Plaintiff with the specific intent of forcing his resignation, Plaintiff resigned from his employment with the Foundation.

Discussion

A. Standards for Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) Motions

In considering a Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) motion, the court must accept as true the facts alleged in the complaint and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn from those facts after construing them in the light most favorable to the non-movant. Pearson v. Miller, 988 F.Supp. 848, 852 (M.D.Pa.1997)(citing Jordan v. Fox, Roths-child, O'Brien, and Frankel, Inc., 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir.1994)). Dismissal is limited to those instances where it is certain that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved. Alexander v. Whitman, 114 F.3d 1392, 1398 (3d Cir.1997).

B. Count II: Defamation

To state a cause of action for defamation, a plaintiff has the burden of proving (1) the defamatory character of the communication; (2) its publication by the defendant; (3) its application to plaintiff; (4) the understanding by the recipient of its defamatory meaning; (5) the understanding by the recipient of it as intended to be applied to the plaintiff; (6) special harm resulting to the plaintiff from its publication; and (7) abuse of any conditional privilege. Sabo v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 137 F.3d 185, 196 (3d Cir.1998)(citing 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 8343).

1. Defamatory Character of Statement

Plaintiff pleads that Defendant, Dr. Donnelly, stated that he was "sick," "vindictive," involved in an inappropriate sexual relationship with his supervisor, and abused sick time and time off. (Pl.'s Compl. at ¶ 45.) By this motion, Defendant asserts that the alleged statements are not capable of a defamatory meaning and therefore not actionable. (Def.'s Mot. Dismiss at 2.) Under a 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 8343 claim, a plaintiff must plead the defamatory character of the communication being alleged. Sabo, 137 F.3d at 196. "Whether a statement can reasonably be construed as defamatory is a question of law for the court to decide." Lynch v. Borough of Ambler, 1996 WL 283643, *6 (E.D.Pa.1996); Weinstein v. Bullick, 827 F.Supp. 1193, 1196 (E.D.Pa.1993).

The court must view the statements in context and determine whether they were maliciously published and tended to blacken a person's reputation or to injure him in his business or profession. Green v. Mizner, 692 A.2d 169, 172 (Pa.Super.1997); Baker v. Lafayette College, 516 Pa. 291, 296, 532 A.2d 399, 402 (1987)(citing Corabi v. Curtis Publishing Company, 441 Pa. 432, 441, 273 A.2d 899, 904 (1971)). Under Pennsylvania law, the test to be applied in evaluating any statement is the effect the article is "fairly calculated to produce and the impression it would naturally engender in the minds of the average persons among whom it is intended to circulate." Gutman v. Tico, 1998 WL 306502, *6 (E.D.Pa.1998); see also Wendler v. DePaul, 346 Pa.Super. 479, 482, 499 A.2d 1101, 1103 (1985)(citing Corabi, 441 Pa. at 447, 273 A.2d 899).

The Defendant relies on Kryeski v. Schott Glass Technologies, Inc., 426 Pa.Super. 105, 626 A.2d 595 (1993) and Parano v. O'Connor, 433 Pa.Super. 570, 641 A.2d 607 (1994) to show that the alleged statements, even if taken as true, are not capable of defamatory meaning. In Kryeski, 426 Pa.Super. at 117, 626 A.2d 595, the court found that the Defendant's statements that Plaintiff was "crazy" and "emotionally unstable" were not meant in the literal sense but were no more than vigorous epithets. However, the court's holding should be read narrowly to apply to statements implying a mental disorder in a hyperbolic manner.¹ In the present case, the alleged statements taken as a whole are not consistent with the types of expressions implying mental deficiency measured in Kryeski.

In Parano, 433 Pa.Super. at 574, 641 A.2d 607, the court held that statements that Plaintiff was "uncooperative" and "less than helpful" were not overly offensive and did not rise to the level of defamation. The statements in the present case were more derogatory on their face and were made from a superior to the supervisors of the Defendant, (Pl.'s Compl. at ¶ 45), while in Parano, the statements were made between individuals involved in a business deal, 433 Pa.Super. at 573, 641 A.2d 607. In light of the circumstances, the statements in the instant case were potentially highly offensive to the Plaintiff and therefore beyond the line recognized by the Parano Court.

In Wendler v. DePaul, 346 Pa.Super. at 482, 499 A.2d 1101, the court ruled that negative statements made in the context of an employment-related report were not defamatory. Id. at 483, 499 A.2d 1101. While in Wendler the appellant's job performance was criticized, the statements were made in the context of appellee's position as supervisor and did not accuse the appellant of dishonesty or anything similar that would blacken his reputation or expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule. Id. (citing Beckman v. Dunn, 276 Pa.Super. 527, 533, 419 A.2d 583, 586 (1980)). Rather, the report was an evaluation of an employment incident akin to opinion, which was supported by reference to facts of the incident. Wendler, 346 Pa.Super. at 480-81, 499 A.2d 1101.

In the present case, Dr. Donnelly and Rockwell's supervisors met with the purpose of reviewing the Plaintiff's complaint filed with the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations, (Pl.'s Compl. at ¶ 43), rather than with the purpose of evaluating the Plaintiff's work relative to a particular incident or performance review as was done in Wendler, 346 Pa.Super. at 482, 499 A.2d 1101. Therefore, it is not clear whether the statements were made by Donnelly in her capacity as the Plaintiff's superior and in the context of evaluating his work performance. Furthermore, the Defendant's repeated assertions that Plaintiff abused time off, even though his Supervisor maintained that his time off was justified, (Pl.'s Compl. at ¶¶ 44-45), are accusatory, implying immoral and dishonest behavior. These assertions cross the line established in Wendler. 346 Pa.Super. at 483, 499 A.2d 1101.

Moreover, not all of Donnelly's statements, as expressions of opinion, are clearly founded on disclosed facts. A simple non-actionable expression of opinion occurs when a person expresses a comment as to another's conduct, qualifications or character after either stating the facts on which he bases his opinion or when both parties to the communication know the facts or...