L. Brown v. A. Clark
184 A.3d 1028
Pa. Commw. Ct.2018Background
- Appellant Lamar Brown, an inmate at SCI-Albion, sued prison employee A. Clark and three others for defamation after Clark allegedly falsely reported Brown threw his ID and used profanity, resulting in a verbal reprimand.
- The complaint named D. Campbell, Steven Glunt, and Dorina Varner in the caption but contained no factual allegations against them.
- Defendants filed preliminary objections (demurrers), asserting sovereign immunity and, for the three unnamed defendants, lack of any pleaded facts.
- The Centre County trial court sustained the objections, dismissing the complaint on sovereign immunity grounds and for failure to plead against Campbell, Glunt, and Varner.
- Brown appealed to the Commonwealth Court, arguing Clark’s alleged violation of the DOC Code of Ethics placed her actions outside the scope of employment and thus outside sovereign immunity.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding Clark’s alleged false report was within the scope of employment and barred by sovereign immunity; the court also affirmed dismissal of the other three defendants for lack of pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clark is entitled to sovereign immunity for alleged defamatory report | Brown: Clark violated the DOC code of ethics, so her report was outside scope of employment and not immune | Defendants: Clark’s report was employment-related conduct and thus protected by sovereign immunity | Held: Sovereign immunity applies; report was within scope of employment and barred the claim |
| Whether allegations that a defendant violated DOC ethics defeat scope-of-employment analysis | Brown: Ethics violation means conduct was personal, not in service of employer | Defendants: Alleged ethics breach is immaterial to scope-of-employment when conduct serves employer interest | Held: Ethics violation does not necessarily place conduct outside scope; prior precedent rejects this argument |
| Whether any facts supported claims against Campbell, Glunt, and Varner | Brown: (no substantive argument or factual averments against them) | Defendants: Complaint contains no allegations as to these defendants | Held: Claims against Campbell, Glunt, and Varner dismissed for failure to plead facts |
| Whether federal cases (e.g., Jacobs) defeat Commonwealth precedent | Brown: Relied on Jacobs (federal case) to argue immunity should not apply | Defendants: Commonwealth precedent controls; Jacobs distinguishable | Held: Jacobs is factually distinguishable and conflicts with controlling Commonwealth Court precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Marrow, 917 A.2d 357 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (Commonwealth personnel immune for intentional torts committed within scope of employment)
- Kull v. Guisse, 81 A.3d 148 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (scope-of-employment factors and standards)
- Brown v. Blaine, 833 A.2d 1166 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (defamatory reports by prison personnel within scope of employment)
- Yakowicz v. McDermott, 548 A.2d 1330 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (sovereign immunity applied to personnel for alleged defamatory statements)
- Holt v. Northwest Training Partnership Consortium, 694 A.2d 1134 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (alleged tortious conduct by prison official still within scope where it furthers prison order)
- La Frankie v. Miklich, 618 A.2d 1145 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (alleged code-of-ethics violation immaterial to scope analysis)