Schott v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
259 A.2d 443, 436 Pa. 279 (1969)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Where an employer solicits suggestions from an employee under a program that makes the employer's decision to grant an award final, no contract is formed if the employer rejects the suggestion. However, the employee may still have a cause of action for unjust enrichment if the employer subsequently appropriates and benefits from the novel idea.

Facts:

Westinghouse Electric Corporation ('Company') maintained a suggestion program inviting employees to submit cost-saving ideas in exchange for cash awards.
The program's submission form stipulated that the decision of the local Suggestion Committee regarding eligibility and awards would be 'final.'
In May 1962, an employee (appellant) submitted a suggestion to manufacture certain circuit breaker panels from fabricated steel instead of the more expensive cast aluminum.
The Suggestion Committee rejected the suggestion, citing high implementation costs, but noted the idea would be considered if a redesign occurred for other reasons.
In September 1963, the employee resubmitted the suggestion, and in January 1964, the Committee rejected it again.
Sometime after the second rejection, the Company redesigned the panels and incorporated the 'same basic idea' from the employee's suggestion, resulting in cost savings.
The Company refused to grant an award, stating that the change was the result of 'independent action taken without knowledge of' the employee's suggestion.

Procedural Posture:

The employee (plaintiff) filed a complaint against Westinghouse Electric Corporation (defendant) in a Pennsylvania trial court.
The defendant filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, arguing the complaint failed to state a valid claim.
The trial court sustained the defendant's objections but granted the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint.
The plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding a second count for unjust enrichment.
The defendant again filed preliminary objections.
The trial court sustained the objections and dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety.
The plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an employee have an enforceable claim, either in contract or quasi-contract (unjust enrichment), for the use of their submitted idea when the employer's suggestion program states the decision of its committee is 'final,' and that committee formally rejected the idea before the employer implemented it?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Pomeroy

No, as to the contract claim; Yes, as to the quasi-contract claim. The employee cannot recover under a contract theory because no contract was ever formed, but he has stated a valid cause of action for unjust enrichment. The company's suggestion program was an offer requesting a suggestion that its committee would find acceptable. Because the committee rejected the employee's suggestion, the act required to form a contract was not performed. However, the absence of a contract does not bar a claim in quasi-contract. The employee alleged that the Company appropriated his valuable idea for its own benefit and was unjustly enriched as a result. These allegations are sufficient to survive a demurrer, as quasi-contractual obligations are created by law for reasons of justice, independent of the parties' intent.

Concurring - Mr. Justice Roberts

Yes, but only on a contract theory. The employee stated a valid claim because the Company's action of utilizing the idea constituted acceptance of the employee's offer, creating an enforceable contract regardless of the formal rejection letter. Recovery should therefore be governed by the terms of the suggestion program. The majority's reliance on unjust enrichment is misplaced because it improperly allows the employee to recover damages outside the agreed-upon framework, potentially exceeding the program's maximum award, which circumvents the clear language of the agreement.

Dissenting - Mr. Chief Justice Bell

No. The employee has no claim because the parties are bound by their written agreement. The contract clearly states that the committee's decision is final, and that should end the matter. The doctrine of unjust enrichment should not be applied to override the clear terms of a written contract that prescribes and limits the rights of the parties.

Analysis:

This decision is significant for establishing that a quasi-contractual remedy for unjust enrichment can exist even when parties have engaged in express contract negotiations that fail to result in an agreement. It prevents an entity from using a discretionary 'finality' clause in a suggestion program as a shield to solicit valuable ideas, formally reject them, and then implement them without compensation. The ruling provides an equitable avenue for relief for idea creators, ensuring that the substance of an action (appropriating an idea) can be legally more important than the form (a rejection letter) when fairness dictates.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Schott v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation (1969)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature