HARRISBURG – A former Penn State University professor has lost the appeal of his breach of contract lawsuit at the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, related to his alleged wrongful termination for sexual harassment.
A three-judge Superior Court panel ruled Dec. 30 that judgment in favor of the university and against plaintiff Dr. Thomas Winter was affirmed, upholding the original decision of the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas.
Penn State employed Winter for 38 years as a physics professor in the Eberly College of Science, at Penn State’s Wilkes-Barre Campus in Lehman. On Nov. 20, 2014, Penn State terminated Winter from his employment for “grave misconduct” stemming from his alleged sexual harassment of an undergraduate student.
Winter filed a complaint on Aug. 23, 2016 and an amended complaint on Oct. 4, 2016 against Penn State, that raised a claim for breach of contract related to his alleged unlawful termination and Penn State’s alleged failure to act in good faith throughout the termination process.
On March 20, 2020, the trial court, concluding that Penn State acted in good faith and complied with its stated policies and procedures for the dismissal of a tenured faculty member, entered an order granting summary judgment in favor of Penn State.
Winter then appealed to the Superior Court, countering that the school did not act in good faith per the tenets of “Penn State Human Resources Policy HR-70 Dismissal of Tenured or Tenure-Eligible Faculty Members” (HR-70) when it conducted the termination of his employment.
“The essence of appellant’s argument is not that Penn State unreasonably delayed notice of the alleged misconduct that gave rise to the adequate cause to initiate termination proceedings but, rather, that the notice should have preceded the March 21, 2014 meeting between Kenneth Lehrman, Vice President for Affirmative Action and Title IX Coordinator and Winter,” Superior Court Judge Judith Ference Olson said.
“HR-70 required Penn State to investigate the veracity and circumstances of the sexual harassment allegations, first, in order to gain ‘sufficient information concerning the allegations’ and then to apprise appellant, in a HR-70 notice, of Penn State’s position and to provide appellant an opportunity to respond. Compliance with HR-70 is achieved so long as notice is sent within a reasonable time after an appropriate administrator learns of the ‘adequate cause’ event. HR-70 does not require that notice be sent to the faculty member before a first or subsequent investigative interaction, such as the meeting between Lehrman and appellant.”
Olson added that a termination letter being drafted for review by Penn State’s president within one day of receiving the recommendation to terminate Winter’s employment “does not give rise to a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Penn State acted in good faith.”
“Given the seriousness of sexual harassment allegations and the need to remove harassers where adequate cause for termination has been found, the speed in which Penn State acted on this matter by drafting a termination letter for the president’s review does not amount to an act of bad faith. Rather, given the urgency with which such matters are to be resolved, as demonstrated by the time restrictions set forth in HR-70, Penn State’s quick action in drafting the termination letter amounts to a good faith effort to bring resolution to the matter,” Olson stated.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania case 745 MDA 2020
Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas case 8789-2016
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com