Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds Individuals Can Sue Third Parties for Tortious Interference With Existing At-Will Employment Relationships

By Ufberg & Associates

February 22, 2024

On February 21, 2024, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a decision in Salsberg v. Mann, No. 7 EAP 2022, that is relevant for all employers. In Salsberg, the Court held that individuals can sue third parties – including current or former co-workers, in some circumstances – for tortious interference with existing at-will employment relationships. Prior to the Salsberg holding, Pennsylvania courts generally limited tortious interference claims to prospective at-will employment relationships

The Plaintiff in Salzberg started working for her manager in October 2011, and was promoted to a management position (under the same manager) in March of 2015. Throughout that time period, the Plaintiff received consistently positive annual performance reviews. However, about a year after the promotion, Plaintiff’s relationship with her manager began to deteriorate. Plaintiff was placed on a performance improvement plan and then subsequently terminated due to performance issues. Plaintiff filed a tortious interference claim against her manager, alleging that the reported performance issues were a pretext, and that Plaintiff’s termination was actually in retaliation for Plaintiff meeting with her manager’s supervisor to express concerns about her manager, and due to her manager’s personal animosity towards Plaintiff.

The trial court granted the manager’s motion for summary judgment, and the Superior Court affirmed summary judgment citing to its prior rulings limiting tortious interference claims to prospective at-will employment relationships. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that Pennsylvania law permits claims against third parties for tortious interference with existing at-will employment relationships. It nevertheless upheld summary judgment for the manager because the facts of the case indicated the manager was not a third party.

The Court observed that a corporation is a creature of legal fiction which can only act through its officers, agents, and employees. Where an individual representing a corporation acts within the scope of that individual’s employment or agency, that representative and the corporation are one and the same entity, and the acts performed are binding on the corporation. As a result, a plaintiff cannot sue a coworker for tortious interference unless the alleged wrongful acts of the coworker fall outside of the scope of that coworker’s employment or authority. In Salsberg, summary judgment for the Plaintiff’s manager was appropriate because the Plaintiff produced no evidence to show that the manager acted outside the scope of her authority, and therefore was not considered a “third party” subject to liability.

The implications of the Salsberg ruling are significant. The prospect of inventive plaintiffs beginning to add individual tortious interference claims against managers, supervisors, and coworkers adds an unwelcome complication to employment litigation. We recommend that employers review their insurance coverages related to workplace tortious interference claims, and take steps to train managerial and supervisory teams in key areas of risk, like internal investigations, performance management, and progressive discipline.

If you have any questions about how the Salsberg ruling may impact your business, please do not hesitate to contact us.

www.ufberglaw.com