A Pennsylvania court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by former narcotics agent Nicholas Davitt against the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (OAG). The court ruled that Davitt's claims of breach of contract and defamation are barred by sovereign immunity, which protects the state from being sued without its consent.

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania issued its ruling on November 5, 2026, in case number 53 M.D. 2025. This decision affects Davitt, who alleged that the OAG violated a separation agreement and harmed his reputation, impacting his job prospects.

Background

Nicholas Davitt worked for the OAG from May 2014 until March 2018. During his tenure, he was placed on administrative leave in 2017 and subsequently faced disciplinary action that led to his resignation. To resolve the matter, Davitt and the OAG entered into a Separation Agreement and General Release. This agreement stipulated that the OAG would provide a neutral employment reference and not disclose negative information about Davitt's termination.

In August 2024, Davitt received a conditional job offer from the State Correctional Institution at Waymart (SCI-Waymart) as a correctional officer. However, the offer was rescinded after a background check revealed that his personnel file indicated he had been dismissed due to conduct issues. Davitt contended that this information violated the terms of their agreement and filed a complaint against the OAG, alleging breach of contract and defamation.

The Ruling

The court, led by Judge Stacy Wallace, examined the OAG's preliminary objection asserting sovereign immunity. The ruling stated, "The General Assembly has not expressly waived sovereign immunity for Davitt’s defamation claim or breach of contract claim against the OAG." This means the OAG cannot be sued for these claims unless the General Assembly has explicitly allowed it.

The court noted that while the General Assembly has created some exceptions to sovereign immunity, they do not apply to Davitt’s situation. The opinion explained that the OAG is protected from civil suits unless there is a specific waiver of immunity by the legislature. As a result, the court dismissed Davitt's complaint, stating, "Without the General Assembly’s express abrogation of sovereign immunity, [Davitt] is without recourse."

Impact

This ruling reinforces the principle of sovereign immunity in Pennsylvania, which protects state agencies from lawsuits unless explicitly stated otherwise by the legislature. Davitt's case illustrates the challenges individuals face when attempting to hold government entities accountable for alleged breaches of contract and defamation.

The decision may discourage other individuals from pursuing similar claims against state agencies, as the court emphasized that it could not create a waiver of immunity not provided by the General Assembly. This outcome may prompt discussions about the need for legislative changes regarding sovereign immunity and the accountability of state agencies.

What's Next

Davitt's options for appeal are limited due to the court's ruling on sovereign immunity. The court's decision stands unless the Pennsylvania Supreme Court chooses to review the case or if there are related cases pending that challenge the principles of sovereign immunity in similar contexts.