Roman, B. v. McGuire Memorial
127 A.3d 26
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Brandy L. Roman worked as a direct care worker at McGuire Memorial from 2009 until her June 24, 2011 termination for refusing mandated overtime.
- McGuire had a mandatory overtime policy under which four refusals could result in termination; Roman maintained she was exempt under Act 102 and refused overtime because of childcare obligations.
- Roman sued in September 2011 alleging wrongful termination in violation of public policy embodied in the Prohibition of Excessive Overtime in Health Care Act (Act 102), seeking back wages, benefits and reinstatement.
- McGuire argued the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Act 102 implementation and remedies were vested in the Department of Labor and Industry; it also raised procedural objections about preservation of issues (failure to file post-trial motions).
- The trial court entered judgment for Roman ($121,869.93 and reinstatement). On appeal, the Superior Court addressed (1) whether subject-matter jurisdiction existed in common pleas and (2) whether McGuire waived the jurisdiction argument by not filing post-trial motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain a wrongful-termination claim based on Act 102 | Roman: Act 102 embodies Commonwealth public policy prohibiting mandatory excess overtime and retaliation; no exclusive administrative remedy existed at filing, so common-law wrongful discharge is available | McGuire: Act 102 enforcement and remedies are vested in the Department; where statutory/admin remedies exist, common-law wrongful discharge is precluded | Held: Court of Common Pleas had jurisdiction. Act 102 states the public policy against forced overtime and, at the time of the complaint, no adopted administrative rules provided an exclusive remedy, so a common-law wrongful termination claim was proper |
| Whether failure to file post-trial motions waived McGuire’s challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction on appeal | Roman: Post-trial motions are required to preserve issues after a bench trial; Liparota shows failure to file post-trial motions waives issues | McGuire: Subject-matter jurisdiction is non-waivable and may be raised at any time, including on appeal | Held: Jurisdiction is non-waivable; McGuire’s failure to file post-trial motions did not bar raising the jurisdictional challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Liparota v. State Workmen’s Ins. Fund, 722 A.2d 253 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (discusses preservation via post-trial motions after bench trial)
- Silver v. Pinsky, 981 A.2d 284 (Pa. Super. 2009) (subject-matter jurisdiction is substantive and non-waivable)
- Rieser v. Glutkowsky, 646 A.2d 1221 (Pa. Super. 1994) (appellate courts may raise subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte)
- McLaughlin v. Gastrointestinal Specialists, Inc., 750 A.2d 283 (Pa. 2000) (common-law wrongful discharge requires clear articulation of public policy grounded in Pennsylvania law)
- Weaver v. Harpster, 975 A.3d 555 (Pa. 2009) (legislative schemes can be exclusive remedies, precluding common-law claims)