Court Opinion

ID: 9704634
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:41:36.285922+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:03.800660
License: Public Domain

ZAPPALA, Justice,
concurring.
While I join in Part A of the majority’s opinion regarding the issue of at-will employment, I must concur only in the result reached in Part B. Unlike the majority, I find that *97the Appellee sufficiently preserved the issue of his defamation claim in his post-trial motions. The purpose of Pa.R.C.P. No. 227.1 is to apprise the trial court of the basis of the litigant’s claim of alleged errors. In this instance, the Appellee indicated in his post-trial motion that the evidence was sufficient to establish a cause of action in defamation. Such allegation satisfies Rule 227.1.
Although I disagree with the majority on the waiver issue, I nevertheless agree with the majority’s disposition of the defamation claim. One of the elements necessary to establish defamation is a communication. 42 Pa.C.S. § 8343. Absent in this record is any evidence to establish any communication of defamatory material. At best, the Appellee bases his theory of defamation on innuendo and supposition. As such, the trial court correctly granted the Appellant’s non-suit. For this reason, I agree with the result reached by the majority in Part B.