A.J. Russo v. Allegheny County, and the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, PA, Criminal Division
125 A.3d 113
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015Background
- Russo alleges a long-term employment contract with CCP (Minute Clerk to Manager of Criminal Division) and a contractual tenure that persisted unless he committed a crime or.Disrespected the Court.
- Russo claims constructive discharge in 2009 (threatened demotion or termination) tied to investigations into CCP and patronage hiring.
- Russo filed February 9, 2011 in the Trial Court naming CCP and Allegheny County; five causes of action: contract-based wrongful discharge, accrued sick days, common-law wrongful discharge, whistleblower under contract, and statutory whistleblower claim.
- The Trial Court transferred Russo's contract/related claims against CCP to this Court, while Allegheny County's dismissal remained in state court.
- CCP and Allegheny County filed preliminary objections; the Court of Common Pleas transferred the CCP action to Commonwealth Court, asserting original jurisdiction over Commonwealth parties.
- The Commonwealth Court ultimately sustains CCP’s preliminary objections and dismisses Russo’s complaint, citing sovereign immunity and lack of statutory waivers for court employees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CCP is immune from Russo’s contract and related claims. | Russo argues the contract claims fall within waivers. | CCP as a court is immune unless the General Assembly waives immunity. | CCP retains sovereign immunity; no waiver for contract claims against courts. |
| Whether the Procurement Code waives sovereign immunity for contract claims. | Contract claims fall within narrow waivers. | Procurement Code waivers do not apply to courts. | No waiver; courts not covered by §1702 for contract claims. |
| Whether Russo’s common-law wrongful discharge claim survives. | Wrongful discharge should be allowed against a Commonwealth party. | Courts are immune; wrongful discharge barred absent enumerated waivers. | Immunity applies; wrongful discharge claim barred. |
| Whether the Whistleblower Law applies to judicial employers. | Whistleblower protections apply to public employers, possibly including judiciary. | Applying the law would violate separation of powers; judiciary not an employer under the Act. | Whistleblower Law does not apply to courts; dismissal of count V. |
| Whether res judicata or statute of limitations bar applies. | Previously filed federal suit could bar current action. | Affirmative defenses not raised in preliminary objections; suit dismissed on merits. | Res judicata/limitations not reached in preliminary objections; underlying rationale supports dismissal on immunity grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cimino v. DiPaolo, 786 A.2d 309 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (courts as Commonwealth officers with immunity; MDJ immunity)
- Heicklen v. Hoffman, 761 A.2d 207 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (state immunity for court officers; sovereign immunity)
- Richardson v. Peters, 19 A.3d 1047 (Pa. 2011) (original jurisdiction over Commonwealth parties; context on immunity)
- In re Domestic Relations Hearing Room, 796 A.2d 407 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (unified judicial system jurisdiction; separation of powers principles)
- Jakomas v. McFalls, 229 F. Supp. 2d 412 (W.D. Pa. 2002) (Whistleblower Law cannot be enforced against judiciary; separation of powers)
- First Judicial District of Pennsylvania v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, 727 A.2d 1110 (Pa. 1999) (judicial employees; exclusive authority to supervise employees)