EMPLOYEE’S CONTINUED WORKING AFTER EXPIRATION OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT DID NOT AUTOMATICALLY RENEW THE CONTRACT
The parties did not reach an agreement regarding the renewal of an employment contract because no meeting of the minds occurred. Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Plaintiff was a medical oncologist and hematologist. In August 2009, he entered into and employment agreement with defendants Thomas Jefferson University and Jefferson University Physicians. Pursuant to that agreement, plaintiff received a faculty appointment in the tenure eligible track, along with an appointment as the director of a hematology program in the medical oncology department at the university’s medical college. The term of the agreement was scheduled to end on November 15, 2014.
In June 2014, defendants presented plaintiff with a proposed renewal of his employment contract. This proposed renewal contract included the same salary, but it did not provide a discretionary allowance as the original agreement did. Plaintiff did not accept the terms of the renewal contract. Instead, he asked to discuss the terms with Dr. Flomenberg, the chairman of the medical oncology department. Plaintiff also communicated with the administrator of that department, Andrew Curran. During these negotiations, plaintiff made some changes to defendant’s proposed renewal agreement. Those changes included a higher salary, a longer term, and a discretionary budget. Plaintiff submitted the changes to Curran, who shared them with Dr. Flomenberg. They did not object to plaintiff’s proposed changes, so Curran forwarded the information to the office of decision support. The office responded that it was not able to approve the discretionary budget or the longer term, and that approval from the dean was necessary.
During the time these negotiations were occurring, a prominent university donor and member of its board of trustees was admitted to the hospital for treatment. Plaintiff participated in his care. He overruled the wishes of the trustee patient and his treating physician, because plaintiff thought more aggressive treatment would be harmful to the patient. This patient decided to leave the university hospital to obtain more aggressive treatment elsewhere. Shortly after that incident, Dr. Flomenberg sent plaintiff a letter informing him that his faculty appointment and employment with the university was not being renewed.
Plaintiff filed suit, seeking a declaratory judgment, specific enforcement and compensatory damages. The case proceeded to trial, and the court entered judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiff then filed this appeal.
Plaintiff claimed that the parties’ employment contract automatically renewed when he continued working after the expiration of the original agreement. The court rejected this argument, because there was never any meeting of the minds regarding the renewal agreement. Plaintiff was simply an employee at will after the original contract term expired. Negotiations regarding a possible future contract did not result in an enforceable agreement. Plaintiff pointed out that Dr. Flomenberg agreed to plaintiff’s proposed terms. The court found that Dr. Flomenberg was supportive of plaintiff, but the record was clear that Flomenberg did not have apparent authority to approve plaintiff’s proposal, and the dean never gave such approval. Defendants’ silence regarding plaintiff’s proposed renewal contract did not equate to ratification. The court concluded the judgment should be affirmed in its entirety.
Reference: Digest of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 41 PLW 1077, Tuesday, November 13, 2018, Weiss v. Thomas Jefferson Univ., PICS Case No. 18-1314 (C.P. Philadelphia Sept. 14, 2018)
Kindly visit our Employment Law and Business & Commercial Litigation websites or contact one of our Employment Law Attorneys, Philadelphia or Business Litigation Attorneys, Philadelphia at 215-977-8200 for more information on this topic.