PITTSBURGH – The former chief of police in Leet Township has lost his breach of contract suit, which had alleged he was unlawfully fired four years before his contract expired.
Michael Molinaro first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Feb. 1 versus Leet Township. Both parties are of Fair Oakes.
The complaint alleged that Molinaro’s employment as Chief of Police, which began on March 8, 2021, was terminated without just cause on July 25, 2022, over three years before his contract was due to expire on March 8, 2026.
Molinaro asserted that he had received no warnings or disciplinary actions during his tenure and was successful in his role. He is seeking compensation for lost wages and benefits that he would have earned had his contract been honored.
The requested monies include an hourly wage of $35.58 from July 26, 2022 through March 8, 2023, and $36.06 per hour from March 8, 2023 through March 8, 2024.
Molinaro said he has suffered more than $404,000 in total damages – and the case is the latest in Molinaro’s battle against the town.
Counsel for Leet Township filed preliminary objections in the matter on March 20, challenging the legal sufficiency of the complaint and averring that (A) the contract is void and unenforceable as a matter of law, and (B) the plaintiff failed to attach a copy of the agreement in violation of Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(i).
“Even if the Township entered into a contract with plaintiff to be the chief of police, the contract is void and unenforceable as a matter of law. Our courts have long explained that public employees in Pennsylvania are typically at-will employees, who do not have tenure unless the legislature specifically confers that right. As such, townships do not have the authority to enter into contracts with employees that would abrogate the at-will employment status,” the objections stated, in part.
“Plaintiff brings a breach of contract action, alleging that he had a five-year employment contract to be the Chief of Police. While the First Class Township Code empowers the Townships to make employment decisions, the Code does not abrogate the at-will status of public employees. The First Township Code permits the Board of Commissioners to enter into contracts, but there is no express language providing it with the authority to abrogate the at-will status of its employees. The Code provides that any such contract must be for ‘lawful purposes and for the purposes of carrying into execution the provisions of this act and the laws of this Commonwealth.”
Leet Township explained in this case, Molinaro was “an at-will, public employee and even assuming that the Township entered into the contract, it did not have the power to abrogate his at-will status by providing him a five-year contract.”
“There is no provision in the law that permits the Township to confer plaintiff with a specific term of employment, nor bind a future council. As such, the purported employment agreement providing plaintiff with a five-year contract is void and unenforceable as the Township would have acted beyond its power by contracting away the right to summarily dismiss an employee. Wherefore, the objection should be sustained as the breach of contract is unsustainable and the purported employment contract is legally insufficient as a matter of law,” the objections continued.
The Township further asserted that the complaint should be dismissed via Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(2), because the plaintiff failed to attach a copy of the purported employment contract to the complaint and did not provide a reason for failing to attach it.
UPDATE
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Judge Mary C. McGinley granted the defendant’s preliminary objections in an April 26 judicial order, which also served to end the case.
“Upon consideration of the preliminary objections of defendant Leet Township to plaintiff’s complaint and any response thereto, it is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that the objections are sustained. The plaintiff indicated they were not appearing to contest the preliminary objections. It is further ordered that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice,” McGinley said.
The plaintiff was represented by David M. Manes of Manes & Narahari, in Pittsburgh.
The defendants were represented by Estelle K. McGrath of Marshall Dennehey, also in Pittsburgh.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-24-001228
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com