Stillman, P. v. Temple Univ. Health
856 EDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Jan 31, 2017Background
- Paula L. Stillman, an at-will physician employee of Temple University Health System (TUHS), was terminated in a November 20, 2013 meeting. TUHS offered severance in exchange for a release.\
- After Stillman objected to 12 weeks, TUHS orally offered six months severance conditioned on a good-faith job search and offset for other earnings; Stillman refused to sign a release.\
- Stillman sued (Feb. 28, 2014) claiming breach of contract for six months severance (without offset), unpaid merit bonus, and interference with subsequent employment.\
- Court sustained TUHS preliminary objections as to any post-termination oral severance agreement for lack of consideration (because Stillman never signed the release); Stillman amended to allege an upfront/separate promise at hiring.\
- TUHS won summary judgment on the bonus claim (offer letter made plaintiff merely "eligible" for a discretionary bonus). Remaining severance claim limited to any oral agreement made prior to or at hire; jury returned verdict for TUHS. Post-trial motions denied; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an oral post‑termination promise to pay six months severance (Nov. 20, 2013) was a enforceable contract | Stillman: TUHS orally agreed at termination to six months severance; her agreement to the release was implied, so adequate consideration existed | TUHS: Any severance promise was conditioned on signing a release; no release = no consideration = no enforceable post‑termination contract | Court: Trial court properly precluded the post‑termination claim for lack of consideration; no JNOV granted to Stillman |
| Whether trial errors (jury charge, verdict sheet, closing argument, excluded evidence) require a new trial | Stillman: Omitted instructions and excluded references to the post‑termination agreement and certain evidence prejudiced her | TUHS: The court correctly excluded the post‑termination claim/evidence and limited argument consistent with prior rulings; admitted evidence was proper | Court: No reversible error; exclusion was proper because post‑termination claim had been judicially removed from jury consideration |
| Admissibility of email between supervisors under business‑records hearsay exception | Stillman: The email was prejudicial or improperly admitted | TUHS: Email was a business record and authenticated by a custodian witness | Court: Email admissible under business‑records exception; admission was not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether the bonus was mandatory (breach) or discretionary (summary judgment) | Stillman: "Eligible for a performance based bonus up to 15%" meant a right to bonus upon meeting goals | TUHS: "Eligible" indicates discretionary award up to 15%; not a guaranteed entitlement | Court: Summary judgment for TUHS affirmed; language and prior practice show bonuses were discretionary |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr.-Braddock Hosp., 950 A.2d 996 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard for JNOV review)
- Tincher v. Omega Flex, Inc., 104 A.3d 328 (Pa. 2014) (adequacy of jury charge standard)
- Mirabel v. Morales, 57 A.3d 144 (Pa. Super. 2012) (standard of review for denial of new trial)
- Schuenemann v. Dreemz, LLC, 34 A.3d 94 (Pa. Super. 2011) (trial court discretion on admissibility of evidence)
- JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Murray, 63 A.3d 1258 (Pa. Super. 2013) (summary judgment standards under Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2)
- Harvey v. Rouse Chamberlin, Ltd., 901 A.2d 523 (Pa. Super. 2006) (appealability of orders denying post-trial motions)
- Coffey v. Minwax Co., Inc., 764 A.2d 616 (Pa. Super. 2000) (limits on counsel's closing argument to facts in evidence)