C. Thomas v. Kathleen G. Kane and Kevin L. Wevodau ~ Appeal of: Kathleen G. Kane
2236 and 2416 C.D. 2015
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Oct 17, 2016Background
- Kane and Thomas cross-appealed an August 17, 2015 interlocutory order in Philadelphia County.
Trial court sustained Kane’s preliminary objections to Counts I, II, III, IV, VI, VII (absolute immunity) and overruled her objection to Count V (name-clearing).
- Thomas alleged Kane and Wevodau made false, defamatory statements in March and April 2014 about the sting operation and Thomas, tortiously harming his reputation.
- Thomas asserted a constitutional claim under Article I, Section 1 seeking equitable relief (name-clearing hearing) and pursued tort claims in personal capacities.
- Court held Kane and Wevodau entitled to absolute immunity for tort claims;Article I, Section 1 does not provide a name-clearing remedy under the facts pled; remanded to dismiss Count V; interlocutory appeal permitted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article I, Section 1 authorizes a name-clearing hearing as a remedy. | Thomas: name-clearing hearing available under Article I, Section 1. | Kane: no independent name-clearing action; remedy not available. | No independent name-clearing remedy under the Constitution. |
| Whether Kane and Wevodau are entitled to absolute immunity for Thomas's tort claims. | Thomas: immunity not applicable; acts outside scope or not closely related. | Kane/Wevodau: high officials; actions closely related to duties and within scope. | Kane and Wevodau entitled to absolute immunity; Counts I, II, III, IV, VI, VII affirmed; Count V dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matson v. Margiotti, 88 A.2d 892 (Pa. 1952) (high official immunity principle; scope within official duties)
- Lindner v. Mollan, 677 A.2d 1194 (Pa. 1996) (high official immunity; scope of authority relies on official duties)
- Osiris Enters. v. Borough of Whitehall, 877 A.2d 560 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (scope of authority; actions within official functions; malice immaterial)
- Hunter v. Port Auth. of Allegheny Cnty., 419 A.2d 631 (Pa. Super. 1980) (right to reputation; due process; stigma-plus context)
- Ersek v. Tp. of Springfield, 102 F.3d 79 (3d Cir. 1996) (federal name-clearing-like equitable relief for stigma due process violation)
- Balletta v. Spadoni, 47 A.3d 183 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (no monetary damages under Article I, Section 1 absent defamation claim)
- R. v. Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 636 A.2d 142 (Pa. 1994) (reputation rights tied to due process; stigma doctrine)