100 A.3d 772
Pa. Commw. Ct.2014Background
- Angelo Armenti Jr. served as President of California University of Pennsylvania pursuant to written "Presidential Employment Agreement" and was terminated for cause on June 1, 2012.
- Armenti sued in federal district court alleging federal claims and pendent state-law claims including breach of contract (claiming a fixed-duration employment contract).
- The district court dismissed the breach-of-contract count for lack of jurisdiction, holding the Board of Claims had exclusive jurisdiction over contract claims against the Commonwealth.
- Armenti filed a Statement of Claim with the Board of Claims for breach of his employment agreement; PASSHE filed Preliminary Objections asserting the Board lacked jurisdiction over employment contracts.
- This Court had recently decided Dubaskas v. Department of Corrections holding the Board of Claims lacks jurisdiction over employment and collective-bargaining agreements because the Procurement Code excludes "employment agreements" from "services."
- The Board of Claims sustained PASSHE’s Preliminary Objections and dismissed Armenti’s claim; Armenti appealed, arguing his statutorily fixed-term presidential appointment made the contract one "for services."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board of Claims has jurisdiction over Armenti’s breach-of-employment-contract claim | Armenti: his presidential appointment under Act 188 was a fixed-duration contract for "services," so Board of Claims has jurisdiction under the Procurement Code | PASSHE: employment agreements are excluded from Procurement Code; Board lacks jurisdiction | Board of Claims lacks jurisdiction; claim dismissed |
| Whether a fixed-duration statutory presidential appointment converts an "employment agreement" into a Procurement Code "services" contract | Armenti: durational term distinguishes it from at-will employment and makes it a services contract | PASSHE: durational term does not change character—still an employment agreement with the Commonwealth | Court: durational term does not alter classification; still an employment agreement excluded from Board jurisdiction |
| Whether court should carve an exception to sovereign immunity/Board jurisdiction to provide a forum | Armenti: without Board jurisdiction he is a "litigant without a forum" and Court should allow an exception | PASSHE: sovereign immunity and statutory jurisdictional scheme control; no judicially created exception | Court: cannot create exceptions to sovereign immunity; only legislature may waive it |
| Waiver/estoppel based on PASSHE’s earlier jurisdictional position in federal court | Armenti: PASSHE previously told federal court Board had jurisdiction — should be estopped | PASSHE: sovereign immunity and subject-matter jurisdiction defenses are nonwaivable | Court: defenses are nonwaivable; prior statements do not estop PASSHE |
Key Cases Cited
- Dubaskas v. Department of Corrections, 81 A.3d 167 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (Board of Claims lacks jurisdiction over employment and collective-bargaining agreements because Procurement Code excludes "employment agreements" from "services")
- Scientific Games Int’l, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 66 A.3d 740 (Pa. 2013) (Procurement Code structures limited waiver of sovereign immunity and defines Board-of-Claims exception)
- Poliskiewicz v. East Stroudsburg Univ., 536 A.2d 472 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (state university is a Commonwealth instrumentality entitled to sovereign immunity)