## Facts

- Janet M. DeGiovanni Sharp was employed as the executive director of Whitman Council, Inc., a South Philadelphia nonprofit that provided community-development and housing-related services for area residents.
- Whitman Council was governed by a board of directors that supervised the executive director.
- A Catholic pastor (“Father Sharp”) served on Whitman Council’s board until August 2004, when he left the priesthood and moved away, ending his board service.
- Sharp and the former pastor became close and married in June 2005.
- After Father Sharp left his ministry, Whitman Council allegedly began accusing Sharp of an affair with him and seeking grounds to terminate her employment.
- Whitman Council allegedly questioned Sharp, community members, and church leaders about intimate aspects of the relationship and threatened to fire Sharp if she did not answer questions.
- Whitman Council allegedly authorized a committee and spent approximately $2,000 to investigate Sharp.
- Whitman Council allegedly publicized that Sharp’s relationship violated Whitman Council employee policies and also circulated accusations that both Whitman Council and the church were missing funds.
- At a church reunion attended by Sharp and her husband after their marriage, attendees allegedly wore T-shirts and badges mocking the couple.
- Sharp filed suit asserting multiple claims, including invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts and other related claims arising from the alleged communications and investigation.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether, on the summary-judgment record, defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Sharp’s claims arising from the alleged investigation and dissemination of information about her relationship and alleged financial improprieties.
2. Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment on Counts VI and VII of the amended complaint.
3. Whether genuine disputes of material fact required that Sharp’s remaining claims (including privacy- and reputation-based theories) proceed to trial.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Counts VI and VII of the amended complaint.
- The court denied summary judgment as to Sharp’s remaining claims, concluding that they could not be resolved as a matter of law on the record presented.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is appropriate only when the record shows no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- In Pennsylvania, a claim for public disclosure of private facts generally requires proof of publicity of private information that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and is not of legitimate public concern.
- Where the evidentiary record supports competing accounts of what was communicated, to whom, and in what manner, privacy- and reputation-based tort claims often present jury questions rather than issues resolvable on summary judgment.
- A court may grant summary judgment on particular counts while denying it on others, depending on whether the evidence supports each claim’s required elements.

## Conclusion

Sharp v. Whitman Council, Inc. arose from a nonprofit employer’s alleged investigation and circulation of information about its executive director’s relationship with a former priest and board member, along with related accusations of policy violations and missing funds. On defendants’ summary-judgment motion, the court entered judgment for defendants on Counts VI and VII but denied summary judgment on the remaining counts, leaving Sharp’s other claims, including privacy- and reputation-related theories, for further proceedings.


Sharp v. Whitman Council, Inc., 2007 WL 2874058 (2007)