Holman v. City of Pittsburgh, Corp.

• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
• Writing for the Court: MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE KELLEY
• Decision Date: 05 August 2011
• Docket Number: No. 2149 C.D. 2010,2149 C.D. 2010
• Citation: Holman v. City of Pittsburgh, Corp., No. 2149 C.D. 2010 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Aug 05, 2011)
• Parties: James D. Holman, Appellant v. City of Pittsburgh, a municipal corporation

James D. Holman, Appellant v. City of Pittsburgh, a municipal corporation

No. 2149 C.D. 2010

COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Argued: June 6, 2011

August 5, 2011

BEFORE: HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge (P) HONORABLE JAMES R. KELLEY, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE KELLEY

James D. Holman appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court) entering judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the City of Pittsburgh (City) and against Holman. We affirm.

As a City employee, Holman was eligible to receive pension benefits under the City's municipal pension plan adopted by ordinance¹ pursuant to the Act of August 1, 1975, P.L. 169, 53 P.S. §§23581-23592 (Pension Act of 1975), which is an act relating to pensions for employees of the City of Pittsburgh. Section 1 of the Pension Act of 1975 defines "fund" as "[t]he fund created by the city inaccordance with the act of May 28, 1915 (P.L. 596, No. 259), referred to as the Second Class City Employe Pension Law."² 53 P.S. §23581 (footnote omitted).

Section 1 of the Second Class City Employe Pension Law mandates that "[a]ll cities of the second class shall create a pension fund for the pensioning of employes of said cities, in the manner, under the conditions, and subject to the qualifications following." 53 P.S. §23561. The qualifications pertinent to this appeal are set forth in Section 3 of the Second Class City Employe Pension Law which provides that an employee who has attained the age of 60 and who has been employed for 20 years may apply for retirement and receive a lifetime pension. 53 P.S. §23563. Section 4 of the Second Class City Employe Pension Law sets forth the precise amount of pension benefits that are to be provided to City employees. 53 P.S. §23564. Section 4 does not allow for the City to extend pension benefits in excess of those specified in the Law, expect in one instance not relevant herein. Id.

Section 1 of the Pension Act of 1975 defines "normal retirement age" as "[a]ge 60, with eight or more years of credited service." 53 P.S. §23581. Section 8 of the Pension Act of 1975 sets forth the calculation for an employee's pension allowance and also provides that employees are subject to a slight reduction in benefits upon reaching age 65 under a provision known as the social security offset. 53 P.S. §23588.

Sometime in 2003, City Mayor Murphy determined that certain categories of City employees should receive more generous pension benefits than those provided for under state law and City ordinance. Specifically, Mayor Murphy determined that those City employees holding three specific managementjob titles, EMS District Chief, EMS Division Chief, and EMS Patient Care Coordinator (hereinafter referred to "EMS Supervisors"), should receive special treatment and be permitted to retire at full pension at age 55 instead of age 60. Accordingly, Mayor Murphy instructed Assistant City Solicitor Edward F. Gentry to act on the Mayor's behalf and to offer such enhanced pension benefits to the City's EMS Supervisors.

On June 10, 2003, Gentry met with Ron Romano, who was an EMS District Chief, and who had been authorized by other EMS Supervisors to act as their representative and to accept on their behalf, any offer of enhanced pension benefits that might be extended to them by the Mayor. As such, Romano was acting as Holman's agent at the June 10, 2003 meeting. As expected, Gentry offered to Romano and the other EMS Supervisors the following enhanced pension benefits: (1) retirement at full pension at age 55; (2) exemption from the social security offset; and (3) a certain unspecified benefit to their surviving spouses. Romano accepted the offer on behalf of himself and the other EMS Supervisors then holding such a position or who would hold such positions in the future in the three affected categories of employees. Gentry sent a confirming memo of the offered enhanced pension benefits to Romano on June 10, 2003. See Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 485a. Thereafter, neither Mayor Murphy nor Gentry took any further steps to have the promised enhanced pension benefits actually enacted into law by the General Assembly or City Council.

In 2007, Holman sent the executive secretary of the City's pension fund a letter informing her that he would turn age 55 in March 2007 and requesting that she present to the City Pension Board his request for approval of full pension benefits at age 55 with no social security offset and with surviving spousalbenefits. R.R. at 490a. By letter dated August 22, 2007, the executive secretary informed Holman that there was no authority for the Pension Board to grant his request for full pension benefits at age 55 in the pension laws and ordinances governing the plan for any non-union employee. Id. at 491a.

Consequently, Holman filed a complaint with the trial court alleging that the City had breached its contract with him by not providing him with the pension he requested at age 55. The City denied Holman's claims; specifically stating that Mayor Murphy did not have the authority to change statutory pension benefits by way of agreement. A jury trial ensued. At the close of the evidence, the trial court judge informed the jury that he had ruled as a matter of law that the City's Mayor had the authority to direct Gentry, as Assistant City Solicitor, to enter into an agreement with the EMS Supervisors wherein Gentry offered them certain pension enhancements. R.R. at 468a. The trial court judge further informed the jury that they had to decide an issue of fact and presented, by way of special interrogatory, the following issue to be addressed by the jury:

Question 1: Do you find that Mayor Tom Murphy authorized Assistant City Solicitor Ed Gentry to offer the special pension enhancements to District Chief Ron Romano as representative of the EMS Supervisors? In other words, did Mayor Murphy authorize Ed Gentry to enter into the agreement that:

The Pension enhancements (re: social security offset, surviving spouse, etc.) as well as the unreduced at 55 pension benefits will be applicable to the following positions: (1) District Chief, (2) Division Chief, and (3) Patient Care Coordinator.

Id. The jury answered the foregoing question "Yes" and entered a verdict in favor of Holman.

The City filed a timely post-trial motion requesting that the trial court enter judgment for the City notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). Upon review, the trial court granted the City's motion and entered judgment in favor of the City and against Holman. The trial court held that Mayor Murphy did not have the authority to act unilaterally, without legislative action by City Council or the General Assembly, to bind the City to paying enhanced pension benefits to certain groups of employees over and above what those employees were otherwise entitled to receive under the Pension Act of 1975. This appeal followed.³

The following issues are presented for this Court's review:

1. Whether the trial court erred in granting JNOV in favor of the City when it held that the City's Mayor did not have authority to grant a supplemental retirement benefit to Holman and other unrepresented EMS Supervisors; and

2. Whether the trial court erred in granting JNOV when it failed to consider whether the City was equitably estopped from raising the defense that the Mayor did not have the authority to grant the retirement benefit, and failed to instruct the jury on that issue.

In support of the first issue raised in this appeal, Holman initially argues that the trial court's grant of JNOV in favor of the City should be reversedbecause the court determined during trial that the Mayor had the authority to grant the enhanced pension benefits at issue. It was only after the trial court held as a matter of law that the Mayor had the authority, that the court then instructed the jury on the factual issue of whether the Mayor delegated that authority to Assistant City Solicitor Gentry. Holman contends that the trial court inexplicably reversed its own determination in disposing of the City's motion for JNOV that the Mayor had the authority without even acknowledging it had done so.

We reject Holman's argument on this point as meritless. It is well settled that the purpose of permitting post-trial motions is to provide the trial court with an opportunity to review and reconsider its earlier rulings and correct its own error. See Claudio v. Dean Macine Co., Inc., 574 Pa. 359, 368-69, 831 A.2d 140, 145 (2003); American Association of Meat Processors v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange, 527 Pa. 59, 588 A.2d 491 (1991); Chalkey v. Roush, 757 A.2d 972 (Pa. Super. 2000), aff'd, 569 Pa. 462, 805 A.2d 491 (2002); Soderberg v. Weisel, 687 A.2d 839 (Pa. Super. 1997); Meeting House Lane, Ltd. v. Melso, 628 A.2d 854 (Pa. Super. 1993), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 537 Pa. 633, 642 A.2d 486 (1994); and Taylor v. Celotex Corporation, 574 A.2d 1084 (Pa. Super. 1990)). See also Riccio v. American Republic Insurance Co., 550 Pa. 254, 262, 705 A.2d 422, 426 (1997) ("[T]o . . . not allow a judge deciding post-trial motions to overrule legal errors made during the trial process (whether made by the reviewing judge or another judge who presided over the trial) would render the post-trial motion rules meaningless and the post-trial motion process would become nothing more than an exercise in futility.").

Next, Holman contends that the characterization of the benefit in this case as a "pension" enhancement is a red herring. Holman argues that in essence,the enhancement to the retirement allowance is no different than a wage increase. Holman contends that it was conclusively established at trial that the City's Home Rule Charter grants the Mayor the power: (1) to grant salary, promotions and benefits to all employees; (2) to supervise all City employee and officers; and (3) to take such action as may be necessary to...