M. Unger v. Paupack Twp. Supers.
327 C.D. 2024
Pa. Commw. Ct.May 1, 2025Background
- Marianne Unger was a part-time, at-will secretary/treasurer for Paupack Township, responsible for payroll and administrative duties.
- In March 2020, Unger reported that a colleague, Cheryl Scartelli, had been overpaid approximately $3,500 due to excess vacation time.
- The Township investigated and resolved the overpayment issue with Scartelli, determining it was largely a payroll system error.
- Unger went on medical leave for anxiety and exhaustion in May 2020; the Township subsequently informed her there was no need for her to return.
- Unger filed a whistleblower lawsuit, claiming her termination was retaliatory for her report.
- At trial, after Unger’s presentation, the Township’s motion for compulsory nonsuit was granted, and the complaint was dismissed. Unger appealed before filing a post-trial motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compulsory nonsuit improperly granted | Evidence supported connection between report and termination. | Unger failed to prove causal connection; evidence insufficient. | Issue waived; appeal quashed due to lack of post-trial motion. |
| Cross-examination on causation | Township’s cross-exam was improper regarding whistleblower causation. | Proper to probe causation links on cross. | Issue waived; not preserved for appeal. |
| Denial of motion to compel discovery | Discovery necessary to support claims. | Discovery rulings within trial court discretion. | Issue waived; not preserved for appeal. |
| Interlocutory order and appealability | Order dismissing case was appealable. | Appeal was premature without judgment or post-trial motion. | Order was interlocutory; appeal quashed. |
Key Cases Cited
- L.B. Foster Co. v. Lane Enters. Inc., 710 A.2d 55 (Pa. 1998) (post-trial motion filing required to preserve issues for appeal)
- Burrell Educ. Ass’n v. Burrell Sch. Dist., 674 A.2d 348 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (issue must be specifically raised in post-trial motions to be preserved for appeal)
- Chalkey v. Roush, 805 A.2d 491 (Pa. 2002) (purpose of post-trial motion is for trial court to correct its own errors before appellate review)
- Browne v. Dep’t of Transp., 843 A.2d 429 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (post-trial motions must be briefed and argued to the trial court)
- Triple Crown Corp., Inc. v. Lower Allen Twp., 327 A.3d 748 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2024) (strict application of post-trial motion requirement for appealability)