Baker v. Lafayette College

• Citation: 516 Pa. 291,532 A.2d 399
• Decision Date: 15 October 1987
• Docket Number: No. 111,111
• Parties: , 42 Ed. Law Rep. 598 Melvin BAKER, Appellant, v. LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, Appellee. E.D. 1986.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 399

532 A.2d 399

516 Pa. 291, 42 Ed. Law Rep. 598

Melvin BAKER, Appellant, v. LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, Appellee.

No. 111 E.D. 1986.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Jan. 29, 1987.

Decided Oct. 15, 1987.

J. Stephen Kreglow, Easton, for appellant.

George C. Laub, Norman Seidel, Easton, for appellee.

Before NIX, C.J., and FLAHERTY, HUTCHINSON, ZAPPALA and PAPADAKOS, JJ.

OPINION

ZAPPALA, Justice.

We granted the Appellant's petition for allowance of appeal to review the Superior Court's order, 350 Pa.Super. 68, 504 A.2d 247, affirming the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, which had granted Appellee's preliminary objections to parts of Count I and II of the Appellant's complaint and granted a motion for summary judgment to the remaining parts of Count I and II of that same complaint. Because we hold that the communications were not defamatory and that the Appellant's contract was not breached, we affirm.

On or about May 19, 1976, the Appellant accepted a position as an Assistant Professor in the Art Department of Lafayette College (College). The written contract term was for two years commencing with the Fall term of 1976 although the Appellant believed he had a commitment for two two-year contracts to be followed with tenure. Furthermore, his contract incorporated and included The Faculty Handbook.

Between May and June of 1977, internal problems arose within the Art Department and with the behavior of its chairman. As a result of alleged behavioral problems of the department chairman, the Appellant had frank and open discussions with the College's staff, including the President, the Provost, the Assistant Provost, and the College physician. The Appellant was assured that all conversations would be held in strict confidence. However, at a later date, the Appellant learned that the department chairman had been advised of the substance of these conversations. Further investigation of the chairman resulted in the College physician recommending psychiatric and psychological counseling for the department chairman.

On July 15, 1977, the department chairman wrote his first evaluation of the Appellant. In this report, the chairman critiqued each course taught by the Appellant as well as his overall job performance. On October 31, 1977, the chairman authored his second evaluation in which he expressed disappointment and dissatisfaction with Appellant's overall job performance, his failure to improve such performance, and his failure to live up to his projected performance. In this second evaluation, the department chairman recommended that Appellant not be reappointed. Neither of these evaluations were forwarded to the Appellant.

On December 13, 1977, the Appellant was informed that he would not be reappointed because economic factors required a decrease in the staffing of the Art Department. The Appellant then advised the provost that he would not appeal this determination and requested that no further review be conducted as had occurred after another teacher's termination. Notwithstanding, the dean of the Tyler School of Art of Temple University (Tyler) visited the College. Although the provost indicated that the purpose of the dean's visit was to evaluate the Art Department, the dean indicated in his report that the purpose of his visit was to evaluate a faculty member of the Art Department and the facts surrounding his termination.

Pursuant to Section 3.555 of The Faculty Handbook, the Appellant appealed his nonreappointment to the president of the College and requested the appointment of an advisory committee. This committee gave little credence to the chairman's evaluations and likewise found fault with the evaluation of the dean of Tyler. The committee did not recommend retaining the Appellant but did recommend that new evaluations be conducted. Despite the expressed views of the advisory committee about the unreliability of the evaulations, the president denied the appeal. The board of trustees affirmed that decision.

The Appellant then commenced this litigation by filing a complaint against Lafayette College, asserting that the two evaluations by the department chairman, the evaluation of the dean from Tyler, and a memorandum from the department chairman to the provost were all libelous and slanderous. In addition, the Appellant alleged that the College breached his employment contract by not acting in good faith in reviewing his reappointment.

In response to the complaint, the Appellee filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, alleging that the communications complained of, even if libel and slander, were consented to. In addition, the Appellee alleged that the assumpsit claim was barred by the express terms of the contract which provided that the term of employment was for two years and specifically noted that no assurances were given as to any employment after the expiration of the contract.

The trial court dismissed the defamation actions based upon the two evaluations of the department chairman, finding that the alleged defamatory material complained of was consentual communications. The Faculty Handbook provided that nontenured professors are subject to evaluations from their peers. Accordingly, the two reports prepared by the department chairman were absolutely privileged. Under the pleaded facts, the trial court was not in a position to determine an absolute privilege with regard to the memorandum from the department chairman to the provost and the report submitted by the dean of Tyler to the provost, thus the demurrer as to these two communications was denied. With regard to the assumpsit claim, the trial court denied the demurrer finding that sufficient questions of fact existed with respect to the interpretation of the language concerning the employment term.

Thereafter, the same trial judge was confronted with the Appellee's motion for summary judgment to the assumpsit claim and to the claims based upon the alleged defamatory materials not otherwise dismissed by the preliminary objections. With regard to the memorandum by the department chairman to the provost (Exhibit C-R. 59a) the trial court held that the contents were not defamatory and therefore a cause of action did not lie. Likewise, the trial court held that the evaluation of the dean of Tyler (Exhibit D-R. 60a) consisted of nothing more than the opinions of the dean with regard to the operation of the Art Department. Therefore, the communication was not defamatory in nature. Finally, as to the assumpsit claim, the trial court held that the contract clearly established that the term of employment was for two years. By his deposition testimony, the Appellant admitted that the contract gave no assurances for renewal of his appointment. Consequently, the court held that the College did not breach the Appellant's contract.

On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed holding inter alia that Exhibits A (R. 48a) and B (R. 54a) were consentual communications required by The Faculty Handbook and Exhibits C and D were not capable of defamatory meaning. Likewise, the Appellant failed to state a contract action against the Appellee because the Appellee complied with the terms of the agreement including the length of the contract and the procedures involved in the review process. For the following reasons we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

In order for a statement to be considered libelous or slanderous, the trial court must, in the first instance, make a determination as to whether the communication complained of can be construed to have the defamatory meaning ascribed to it by the complaining party. Bogash v. Elkins, 405 Pa. 437, 176 A.2d 677 (1962). In reaching this conclusion, the court must view the statements in context, Thomas Merton Center v. Rockwell International Corporation, 497 Pa. 460, 442 A.2d 213 (19...