employment - employee information - employer duty to protect - damages

Dittman v. UPMC – Pa. Supreme Court – November 21, 2018

Held:

[A]n employer has a legal duty to exercise reasonable care to safeguard its employees’ sensitive personal information stored by the employer on an internet-accessible computer system.

Under Pennsylvania’s economic loss doctrine, recovery for purely pecuniary damages is permissible under a negligence theory provided that the plaintiff can establish the defendant’s breach of a legal duty arising under common law that is independent of any duty assumed pursuant to contract.

mootness

Clean Air Council v. County of Allegheny – Cmwlth. Court – November 19, 2018 – unreported* memorandum opinion

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/515CD18_11-19-18.pdf?cb=1

This case is not of interest as far as substance, but it has the following discussion of the doctrine of mootness.

The mootness doctrine requires an actual case or controversy to exist at all stages. It is a well-established principle of law that this Court will not decide moot questions. The articulation of the mootness doctrine . . . was acknowledged in . . . In re Gross, . . . 382 A.2d 116 ([Pa.] 1978) as follows: The problems arise from events occurring after the lawsuit has gotten under way-changes in the facts or in the law-which allegedly deprive the litigant of the necessary stake in the outcome. The mootness doctrine requires that ‘an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review. . . .’ G. Gunther, Constitutional Law 1578 (9th ed. 1975). [In re Gross], 382 A.2d at 119.

An issue can become moot during the pendency of an appeal due to an intervening change in the facts of the case or due to an intervening change in the applicable law. In re Cain, . . . 590 A.2d 291, 292 ([Pa.] 1991). Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. v. Cromwell Twp., Huntingdon Cty., 32 A.3d 639, 651 (Pa. 2011). Further, [the Pennsylvania Supreme] Court has repeatedly recognized two exceptions to the mootness doctrine: (1) for matters of great public importance and (2) for matters capable of repetition, which are likely to elude review.

Moreover, we have found this exception applicable where a case involves an issue that is important to the public interest or where a party will suffer some detriment without a court decision.   Pilchesky v. Lackawanna Cty., 88 A.3d 954, 964-65 (Pa. 2014) (citation omitted).

                                                              

Under the mootness doctrine, ‘an actual case or controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.’ Pub. Defender’s Office of Venango [Cty.] v. Venango [Cty.] Court of Common Pleas, . . . 893 A.2d 1275, 1279 ([Pa.] 2006) [(quoting Pap’s A.M. v. City of Erie, . . . 812 A.2d 591, 599-600 ([Pa.] 2002))]. The existence of a case or controversy requires ‘a real and not a hypothetical legal controversy and one that affects another in a concrete manner so as to provide a factual predicate for reasoned adjudication. . . .’ City of Phila[.] v. [Se. Pa. Transp. Auth.], 937 A.2d 1176, 1179 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). Harris v. Rendell, 982 A.2d 1030, 1035 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009), aff’d, 992 A.2d 121 (Pa. 2010). Further, [i]t is well settled that the courts ‘do not render decisions in the abstract or offer purely advisory opinions.’ Pittsburgh Palisades Park, LLC v. Commonwealth, . . . 888 A.2d 655, 659 ([Pa.] 2005). Judicial intervention ‘is appropriate only where the underlying controversy is real and concrete, rather than abstract.’ City of Phila[.] v. Commonwealth, . . . 838 A.2d 566, 577 ([Pa.] 2003). Harris, 982 A.2d at 1035. “The key inquiry in determining whether a case is moot is whether the court or agency will be able to grant effective relief and whether the litigant has been deprived of the necessary stake in the outcome of the litigation.” Consol Pa. Coal Co., LLC v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 129 A.3d 28, 39 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015)

======================

*An unreported Commonwealth Court case may not be cited binding precedent but can be cited for its persuasive value.  See 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(b)

UC - appeal - waiver of issue - UCBR argument held to be "sophistry"

Patnesky v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court (2-1) – unreported* memorandum decision

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/591CD17_10-29-18.pdf?cb=1

The Court held that the employer failed to prove willful misconduct of a state driver’s license examiner who issued a replacement ID card for the “incapacitated” child of a co-worker.   The Court said that the claimant’s conduct did not violate a work rule, which it found to be ambiguous, thus resulting, at worst, in an inadvertest or negligent violation of the rule rather than the required deliberate violation.   It is well established that noncompliance with a work rule in itself does not amount to a “deliberate violation.” Oyetayo, 110 A.3d at 1121; Chester Community Charter School v. UCBR, 138 A.3d 50, 54 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (“[a]n inadvertent or negligent violation of an employer’s rule may not constitute willful misconduct.”).   

UCBR argument that claimant had waived an issue was held to be “sophistry.”

The more significant part of the opinion  rejected the Board’s position that claimant had waived an argument. 

At the outset, we address the Board’s waiver argument, which it makes in virtually every brief it files with this Court. The Board asserts that because the statement of questions in Claimant’s brief raises only the issue of whether Claimant committed disqualifying willful misconduct under Section 402(e) of the Law, Claimant cannot challenge the Referee’s “findings of fact,” which in this case include a statement that Claimant violated Employer’s confidentiality policy because [the incapacitated child] “was not present during the transaction.” . . . .Finding of Fact No. 6.   

By couching the legal conclusion that Claimant violated the policy as a “finding of fact,” the Referee attempted to place the proverbial rabbit in the hat. The Board unquestioningly adopted this “finding of fact” and now asserts that the ultimate legal issue in this case is beyond appellate review. This is sophistry.

Whether Claimant’s actions constituted disqualifying willful misconduct is a question of law fully reviewable by this Court. Oyetayo v. UCBR, 110 A.3d 1117, 1122 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). In deciding that legal issue, this Court must determine whether Claimant’s actions.  violated Employer’s policy as was concluded by the Board. We reject the Board’s waiver argument and proceed to the merits of Claimant’s appeal.

============================

*An unreported Commonwealth Court case may not be cited binding precedent but can be cited for its persuasive value.  See 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(b) and Pa. R.A.P.  3716