HARRISBURG – A federal judge has dismissed litigation from a former athletic trainer at Penn State University with prejudice, finding that the doctrine of res judicata barred the plaintiff’s case.
Henry T. Bream III of Florida first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on March 1 versus The Pennsylvania State University, of University Park.
Bream, III was hired as the Director of Athletic Training Services and Head Athletic Trainer for varsity football at the university in 2012, signing a five-year contract with the defendant set to expire in June 2017.
During his tenure at the university, Bream said his employment was wholly positive. He was offered a salary increase two years into his employment, and was then promoted in March 2015 to Assistant Athletic Director in Sports Medicine Support Services.
According to the lawsuit, Bream was told by his superior, Senior Associate Athletic Director Charmelle Green, that the employment contract would be renewed about a month before its expiration.
The contract ended and plaintiff continued to work for the university until February 2018, due to being told that the contract would renew.
But on Feb. 6, 2018, Bream’s employment was terminated. The plaintiff referred to the decision as “unjustified” and that no action on his part was ever a cause for the termination.
On Nov. 18, 2019, Bream sued Penn State, Athletic Director Sandy Barbour and Green in the Centre County Court of Common Pleas. In this state-court complaint, Bream alleged wrongful constructive discharge, civil conspiracy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On May 5, 2020, the Court of Common Pleas dismissed Bream’s case without prejudice, allowing Bream to amend his complaint – but Bream never filed an amended complaint.
Bream then sued Penn State in the instant federal court for one count of breach of contract and one count of promissory estoppel, with the plaintiff requesting his employment agreement be reinstated in addition to compensatory damages.
In response, Penn State filed a motion to dismiss the case on May 3, for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Matthew W. Brann opted to dismiss the case on Sept. 22, ruling that res judicata and the prior state court dismissal then led to the federal court likewise being dismissed.
Res judicata bars a party from initiating a second suit against the same adversary based on the same ‘cause of action’ as the first suit, and need to show (1) A final judgment on the merits in a prior suit, involving (2) the same parties or their privies and (3) a subsequent suit based on the same cause of action.
Brann found that Penn State’s motion to dismiss met all three criteria.
“First, the Court of Common Pleas dismissed Bream’s complaint because his allegations were legally insufficient to state a claim. Under Pennsylvania law, ‘Dismissal of an action for failure to state a claim is a final judgment on the merits.’ Thus, the Court of Common Pleas’s dismissal was a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes,” Brann said.
“In dismissing Bream’s complaint, the Court of Common Pleas addressed the merits of each of Bream’s claims. Such merits analysis further indicates that the dismissal was a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes. Moreover, the Court of Common Pleas gave Bream 20 days to file an amended complaint. But Bream did not do so, thus concluding that case. This missed 20-day deadline also demonstrates that the Court of Common Pleas issued a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes. Thus, Penn State establishes the first element of res judicata.”
Secondly, Brann added that Bream and Penn State were parties in the state court case and this distinction established the second element of res judicata.
“Third, the causes of action are the same. Bream’s state and federal complaints concern the same acts: His salary reduction and removal from the Assistant Athletic Director position. And both complaints demand the same relief: Money damages. Both complaints therefore assert the same causes of action, and res judicata applies,” Brann stated.
“Bream counters that the Court of Common Pleas never considered the contractual and promissory theories of liability he raises here. Indeed, Bream did not assert these theories of liability in the Court of Common Pleas. But ‘res judicata is not limited to the specific issues raised and decided in the prior proceeding and also bars matters that could have been raised and decided in the prior proceeding.’ Because Bream could have claimed breach of contract and promissory estoppel in the Court of Common Pleas, res judicata bars those claims in this Court. Accordingly, Bream’s claims are dismissed.”
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 4:21-cv-00374
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com