Guerra v. REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF PHILA.
27 A.3d 1284
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Guerra, a longtime RDA employee and former General Counsel, was terminated by the RDA on June 9, 2008.
- Guerra sued claiming RDA's 45-year-old Rules and Regulations for Personnel Administration created a contract that allowed dismissal only for cause.
- Guerra also alleged he detrimentally relied on RDA's representations that termination required cause, supporting a promissory estoppel claim.
- RDA moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing it lacked statutory power to promise tenure and that tenure could not be created by its regulations.
- The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings against Guerra on both counts, and this appeal followed.
- The central question is whether the RDA Rules create enforceable employment contracts or tenure, or whether promissory estoppel applies against a governmental entity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the RDA Rules create an enforceable contract for tenure? | Guerra argues the Rules precluded termination without cause, forming a contract. | RDA contends it lacked legislative authority to create tenure and the Rules are ultra vires. | No; Rules did not create enforceable contract or tenure. |
| Can Guerra pursue promissory estoppel based on reliance on the Rules? | Guerra maintains reliance on the Rules and RDA’s actions caused damages. | RDA argues promissory estoppel is inapplicable where agency lacks power to grant tenure. | No; promissory estoppel cannot bind the agency beyond its statutory powers. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Philadelphia Parking Authority, 402 Pa. 151 (1961) (tenure requires explicit legislative grant; public-employment at-will unless legislature grants power)
- Banks v. RDA, 416 F. Supp. 72 (E.D. Pa. 1976) (state agency cannot create tenure absent statutory power)
- Mahoney v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, 13 Pa.Cmwlth. 243 (1974) (housing authorities lack power to alter at-will status absent enabling statute)
- Albright v. City of Shamokin, 277 Pa. Super. 344 (1980) (creation of benefits must comply with enabling legislation; estoppel may be limited)
- Central Storage & Transfer Co. v. Kaplan, 487 Pa. 485 (1979) (commonwealth cannot be estopped for acts beyond agent’s power or against positive law)
- Hunger v. Grand Cent. Sanitation, 447 Pa. Super. 575 (1996) (at-will employment generally; public policy exceptions limited)
- Werner v. Zazyczny, 545 Pa. 570 (1996) (government employees may be at-will; tenure requires express legislative grant)
- Gorski v. Smith, 812 A.2d 683 (Pa. Super. 2002) (elements of breach of contract claim in employment context)