Cicchiello v. Seiu 1199P Union Serv. Emps. Int'l Union Kim Patterson Seiu 1199 Sec'y Treasurer Wilfredo Tellado MRC Dir. John E Wetzel Sec'y of Pa. Dep't of Corr. Ty Stanton
Decision Date | 26 April 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 361 M.D. 2015,361 M.D. 2015 |
Parties | Joan M. Cicchiello, Petitioner v. SEIU 1199P Union Service Employees International Union Kim Patterson SEIU 1199 Secretary Treasurer Wilfredo Tellado MRC Director John E Wetzel Secretary of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Ty Stanton, Director Human Resources Michael Wenerowicz, Acting Deputy Secretary E. Region Former Deputy Superintendent (SCI Frackville) Raphael Chieke, Equal Employment for the Department of Corrections Timothy A. Holmes, Assistant Council for the Commonwealth, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Brenda Tritt Deputy Superintendent State Correctional Institute at Frackville, Respondents |
Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
OPINION NOT REPORTED
Before this Court in our original jurisdiction are the twelve preliminary objections (POs) of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (Department), John E. Wetzel, Ty Stanton, Michael Wenerowicz, Raphael Chieke, Brenda Tritt, and Timothy A. Holmes1 (Respondents) to the Second Amended Complaint2 filed by Joan M. Cicchiello, representing herself. Service Employee International Union (SEIU) 1199P, Kim Patterson, SEIU's treasurer, and Wilfredo Tellado, SEIU's MRC Director (Union Respondents) have not yet responded to Cicchiello's Second Amended Complaint. Also before the Court is Cicchiello's Motion for Summary Judgment against Union Respondents, as well as a variety of other motions Cicchiello has filed against both sets of respondents.
Cicchiello was discharged from her position as a registered nurse at the State Correctional Institution at Frackville (SCI-Frackville) in January 2007 for a variety of reasons. She had SEIU, her union, file a grievance on her behalf, and the grievance process took from 2006 until 2012. The Department and SEIU executed a Settlement Agreement to resolve the grievance in October 2012; but, concerned that Cicchiello might engage in litigation, it was determined that Cicchiello shouldalso execute the Settlement Agreement which was done in December 2012.3 (Compl. ¶¶ 7-9.) The December 2012 Settlement Agreement provided, in relevant part, that "[t]he Department will award Ms. Cicchiello whatever time was necessary for her to attain twenty-five years of service with the Commonwealth." (Agreement ¶ 2, Ex. B to Second Amended Complaint.) It appears that this provision was included in an effort to allow Cicchiello to receive medical benefits upon her retirement. (Email from Holmes to Tellado (February 4, 2013), (Email), Ex. C to Second Amended Complaint.) Thereafter, on February 4, 2013, Holmes emailed Tellado of SEIU advising him that the Department could not comply with the above provision because it was contrary to various express provisions of the State Employees' Retirement Code (Retirement Code), 71 Pa. C.S. §§ 5102, 5302, 5955.4 However, the Email noted that, in drafting this provision, the parties mistakenly believed that Cicchiello needed 25 years to receive full health insurance in her retirement but she only needed 15 years. Therefore, the Department offered to hire Cicchiello back for 1 day, give her 1 year of salary/service, subject to taxes and retirement contributions, which would give her the 15 years of service she needed to be eligible for health insurance in retirement. (Email; February 2015 Settlement Agreement ¶¶ 2-4, Ex. F to Second AmendedComplaint.) SEIU and the Department executed this February 2015 Settlement Agreement, but Cicchiello refused to do so.
Thereafter, Cicchiello filed a breach of contract action against the Department with the Board of Claims, which was rejected for lack of jurisdiction. The Board of Claims' determination was upheld by this Court in Cicchiello v. Department of Corrections (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 83 C.D. 2015, filed August 5, 2015) (Cicchiello I). In June and July of 2015, Cicchiello filed: the present matter in this Court's original jurisdiction; a second complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Northumberland County (common pleas); and a third complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Middle District Court).5 Each of the complaints is based on the Department's refusal to comply with the December 2012 Settlement Agreement.
In addition to the above-referenced facts, the Complaint avers that: the Department and SEIU did not negotiate in good faith; Cicchiello has not received the benefits promised by the December 2012 Settlement Agreement; the February 2015 Settlement Agreement does not take into consideration the time between 2012 and the present; and the Department continues to discriminate against Cicchiello. (Compl. ¶¶ 13, 18-19, 24.) Cicchiello asserts that, had she continued to work between 2006 and 2015, she would have had twenty-five years of service. (Compl. ¶ 21.) She likewise maintains that the Department and SEIU had the authority to ask for payment for her twenty-five years when it agreed to do so in December 2012. (Compl. ¶ 20.)
Cicchiello seeks a variety of relief in this matter, including "traditional tort remedies such as compensatory damages, pain and suffering, physical and emotional distress, economic loss, time loss." (Compl. Wherefore Clause ¶ b.) She also requests that this Court "[i]ssue declaratory and injunctive relief declaring the above-described practices to be unlawful, and enjoining their past and continued effects." (Compl. Wherefore Clause ¶ c.) Cicchiello also asks for punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Section 1983) and Pennsylvania common law, and a minimum of six million dollars in damages. (Compl. ¶ 30, Wherefore Clause ¶¶ e, f.)
The Second Amended Complaint contains three counts, and Respondents have filed various POs to each count, as well as POs to the Second Amended Complaint in general. We will address each count separately and the corresponding POs as necessary. In reviewing POs, we apply the following standard: "we must consider as true all well-pleaded material facts set forth in the petition for review and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from those facts." Meggett v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 856 A.2d 277, 279 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). "Preliminary objections should be sustained only in cases [in which it is] clear and free from doubt that the facts pleaded by appellant are legally insufficient to establish a right to relief." Werner v. Zazyczny, 681 A.2d 1331, 1335 (Pa. 1996).
Count I is brought pursuant to Section 19836 and asserts:
32. The Defendants acted in concert with each other under color of law to violate the rights of Plaintiff by depriving her of her constitutionally protected right to free speech, and other rights as guaranteed by the [F]irst and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, in that Plaintiff was subjected to discipline and termination, all in violation of her rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and all other Amendments.
(Compl. ¶ 32.) Cicchiello avers that, as a result of these actions, she sustained a variety of damages, including a loss of her reputation, income, enjoyment of retirement and health care benefits, as well as "[p]hysical and mental pain and suffering and anguish." (Compl. ¶ 33.)
Respondents set forth multiple POs to Count I in the nature of a demurrer asserting that Cicchiello has not stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, Pa. R.C.P. No. 1028(a)(4),7 under Section 1983 for a variety of reasons. Respondents aver that Cicchiello's claims, which are premised on the violation of her constitutional rights by her discipline and termination, are barred by res judicata and/or collateral estoppel8 because she previously sued the Department,and others included as respondents here, in the Middle District Court asserting that it retaliated against her, via discipline and termination, for exercising her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and lost. (Holmes' PO V ¶¶ 58-60, 63.9) Respondents note that the Middle District Court granted summary judgment, which was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Third Circuit), and that the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari. (Holmes' PO V ¶ 59 (citing Cicchiello v. Beard, 726 F. Supp. 2d 522 (M.D. Pa. 2010), aff'd, 458 Fed. Appx. 117 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 162 (2012) (Cicchiello II)). Respondents assert that having had a full and fair opportunity to litigate her retaliation claims in federal court and losing means that Cicchiello is barred from reasserting those claims, or any others that could have been brought, in a new action. (Holmes' PO V ¶¶ 61-63.)
Respondents further assert that Cicchiello's Section 1983 claim is barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations, and, therefore, should be dismissed on that basis as well.10 (Holmes' PO VI ¶ 66.) According to Respondents,Cicchiello's claims arose in either 2007 when she was discharged or in February 2013, when she became aware that the Department was not going to comply with the December 2012 Settlement Agreement and, therefore, her original Complaint, filed on July 16, 2015, was beyond the two-year limitations period. (Holmes PO VI ¶¶ 66-67, 69.)
Cicchiello responds, generally,11 that as a pro se litigant, her pleadings should be considered under less stringent standards and appears to argue that any untimeliness was due to her being misled, contradictory language between a rule and court order, or fraud. (Cicchiello's Br. at 16-18.) She further asserts that the totality of the circumstances should be considered and she should be permitted to amend her complaint to overcome the POs. (Cicchiello's Br. at 18.)
After reviewing the Second Amended Complaint and Cicchiello's prior action in federal court, we agree with Respondents that this matter is barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel and, therefore, Cicchiello has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted...
To continue reading
Request your trial