McGough v. Broadwing Communs., Inc.

McGough v. Broadwing Communs., Inc.

Opinion

 [*292]  IRENAS, District Judge:

Plaintiffs Gerald McGough ("McGough") and Matthew Haviland ("Haviland") filed the instant suit against their former employer, Broadwing Communications, Inc. ("Broadwing"), seeking recovery of allegedly unpaid commissions and bonuses. The Complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, as well as for violations of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, 43 P.S. § 260.1 et. seq. ("WPCL"), and the Pennsylvania Commissioned Sales Representatives Act, 43 P.S. § 1471 et. seq ("CSRA"). Finally, Plaintiffs also bring a [**2]  cause of action for an accounting of those commissions which they allege remain due and owing. Presently before the Court is Defendant Broadwing Communications, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Counts IV (WPCL), V (CSRA), and VI (Accounting) of Plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion to dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part.

Plaintiffs Gerald N. McGough and Mathew J. Haviland are former employees of Defendant Broadwing Communications, Inc., a provider of telecommunications services doing business throughout the United States. Plaintiffs were originally hired by Broadwing's predecessor, IXC Communications, on or about August 30, 1998, and employed in the company's retail sales division, Eclipse Telecommunications ("Eclipse"). (Compl. at PP 9-11). Plaintiff McGough assumed a position as a regional sales director and Plaintiff Haviland was employed as a branch manager. Id. According to the complaint, as compensation for their work, Plaintiffs were paid a base salary plus commissions. (Compl. at P 12). As [**3]  a branch manager, Haviland was allegedly entitled to commissions on each sale by a sales person in his branch (referred to as "override commissions"). (Compl. at P 16). In his position as sales director, McGough was similarly entitled to override commissions on all sales within all branches in his region. (Compl. at P 17).

On or around November 15, 1999, Defendant Broadwing acquired IXC Communications. (Compl. at P 8). Following the acquisition, Broadwing began implementation of a variety of changes with respect to the compensation of sales managers. Broadwing initially published and distributed a document entitled "Broadwing Communications, Inc. Sales Compensation Plan for Branch Sales Manager" ("Compensation Plan") which was to become effective beginning April 1, 2000. (Compl. at P 20). Under the original Compensation Plan, commissions were to be calculated based on a customer's third month of billing following the implementation of telecommunications services. However, according to the complaint, while attending a Branch Sales Managers' Summit in Dallas, Texas, hosted by Broadwing, Plaintiffs  [*293]  were allegedly "informed that the Compensation Plans Company-Wide, were not being followed.  [**4]  They were further informed that several changes had already been implemented and others might yet be introduced." (Compl. at P21). Plaintiff McGough was informed, for instance, that the formula for calculating override commissions had been modified so that managers' commissions from sales were being determined on the basis of a customer's first rather than the third month of billing. (Comp. at P22). According to Plaintiffs, Broadwing did not publish or distribute a new Compensation Plan detailing the changes which had apparently been made. (Compl. at P24). Sums earned on commission were simply deposited in Plaintiffs' accounts and no detailed statement of sales commissions was ever provided. (Compl. at P25).

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.