Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
16 Pennsylvania opinions name it 9 courts 1990–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Rapagnani v. Judas Co.green2 sentences2018“In order to rebut the presumption of at-will employment, a party must establish one of the following: (1) an agreement for a definite duration; (2) an agreement specifying that the employee will be discharged for just cause only; (3) sufficient additional consideration; or (4) an applicable recognized public policy exception.” Rapagnani v. The Judas Company, 736 A.2d 666, 669 (Pa. Super. 1999) (citation omitted). 2015“In order to rebut the presumption of at-will employment, a party must establish one of the following: (1) an agreement for a definite duration; (2) an agreement specifying that the employee will be discharged for just cause only; (3) sufficient additional consideration; or (4) an applicable recognized public policy exception.” Janis v. AMP, Inc., 856 A.2d 140, 144 (Pa. Super. 2004) citing Rapagnani v. The Judas Company, 736 A.2d 666, 669 (Pa. Super. 1999). | 6 | 6 |
Luteran v. Loral Fairchild Corp.green2 sentences2005In order to rebut this presumption, plaintiff must establish one of the following: “(1) an agreement for a definite duration; (2) an agreement specifying that the employee will be discharged for just cause only; (3) sufficient additional consideration to establish a contract; or (4) an applicable recognized public policy exception to the at-will doctrine.” Luteran , 455 Pa. Super, at 370, 688 A.2d at 214 . 2004In particular, appellant points to the emphasized language of paragraph number two and argues it does not set forth a term of “specific duration” necessary to rebut the presumption; “[t]he assignment is expected to last three years but no more than five years.” ¶ 6 “In order to rebut the presumption of at-will employment, a party must establish one of the following: (1) an agreement for a definite duration; (2) an agreement specifying that the employee will be discharged for just causé only; (3) sufficient additional consideration; or (4) an applicable recognized public policy exception.” Rapa | 3 | 5 |
Robertson v. Atlantic Richfield Petroleum Products Co.green2 sentences2024To rebut the presumption of an at will employment relationship, an employee must establish: “(1) sufficient additional consideration; (2) an agreement for a definite duration; (3) an agreement specifying that the employee will be discharged only for just cause; or (4) an applicable recognized public policy exception.” Robertson v. Atlantic Richfield Petroleum Products Co. (a Div. Atlantic Richfield Co.), 537 A.2d 814, 819 (Pa. Super. 1987). 2004Pennsylvania courts have recognized three circumstances sufficient to rebut the presumption of at-will employment as follows: (1) there is sufficient additional consideration provided by the employee to the employer which infers that the parties intended that the employment relationship not be terminable at-will; (2) there is an employment agreement for a definite duration; (3) there is an employment agreement specifying that the employee will be discharged for just cause only; or (4) an applicable recognized public policy exception exists. 6 Robertson , 371 Pa. Super, at 58, 537 A.2d at 819 . | 2 | 6 |
Janis v. AMP, INC.green2 sentences2015“In order to rebut the presumption of at-will employment, a party must establish one of the following: (1) an agreement for a definite duration; (2) an agreement specifying that the employee will be discharged for just cause only; (3) sufficient additional consideration; or (4) an applicable recognized public policy exception.” Janis v. AMP, Inc., 856 A.2d 140, 144 (Pa. Super. 2004) citing Rapagnani v. The Judas Company, 736 A.2d 666, 669 (Pa. Super. 1999). 2005We recently explained that a party contending that his employment was not “at will” “ ‘must establish one of the following: (1) an agreement for a definite duration; (2) an agreement specifying that the employee will be discharged for just cause only; (3) sufficient additional consideration; or (4) an applicable recognized public policy exception.’ ” Janis v. AMP, Inc., 856 A.2d 140, 144 (Pa.Super.2004) (quoting Rapagnani v. The Judas Company, 736 A.2d 666, 669 (Pa.Super.1999)). “‘The party claiming that an agreement is for a definite period has the burden of proving that fact ... by providing | 2 | 2 |
Gruenwald v. Advanced Computer Applications, Inc.green1 sentence2005We recently explained that a party contending that his employment was not “at will” “ ‘must establish one of the following: (1) an agreement for a definite duration; (2) an agreement specifying that the employee will be discharged for just cause only; (3) sufficient additional consideration; or (4) an applicable recognized public policy exception.’ ” Janis v. AMP, Inc., 856 A.2d 140, 144 (Pa.Super.2004) (quoting Rapagnani v. The Judas Company, 736 A.2d 666, 669 (Pa.Super.1999)). “‘The party claiming that an agreement is for a definite period has the burden of proving that fact ... by providing | 1 | 1 |
Greene v. Oliver Realty, Inc.green2 sentences2005We recently explained that a party contending that his employment was not “at will” “ ‘must establish one of the following: (1) an agreement for a definite duration; (2) an agreement specifying that the employee will be discharged for just cause only; (3) sufficient additional consideration; or (4) an applicable recognized public policy exception.’ ” Janis v. AMP, Inc., 856 A.2d 140, 144 (Pa.Super.2004) (quoting Rapagnani v. The Judas Company, 736 A.2d 666, 669 (Pa.Super.1999)). “‘The party claiming that an agreement is for a definite period has the burden of proving that fact ... by providing 2005We recently explained that a party contending that his employment was not “at will” “ ‘must establish one of the following: (1) an agreement for a definite duration; (2) an agreement specifying that the employee will be discharged for just cause only; (3) sufficient additional consideration; or (4) an applicable recognized public policy exception.’ ” Janis v. AMP, Inc., 856 A.2d 140, 144 (Pa.Super.2004) (quoting Rapagnani v. The Judas Company, 736 A.2d 666, 669 (Pa.Super.1999)). “‘The party claiming that an agreement is for a definite period has the burden of proving that fact ... by providing | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Richardson v. Charles Cole Memorial Hospital
green
2 sentences1993Robertson v. Atlantic Richfield Petroleum, 371 Pa.Super. 49, 58 , 537 A.2d 814, 819 (1987), allocatur denied, 520 Pa. 590 , 551 A.2d 216 (1988). 2 In Richardson v. Charles Cole Memorial, 320 Pa.Super. 106 , 466 A.2d 1084 (1983), an employee handbook issued to the plaintiff contained a statement that the employer’s policy was to offer “continuous’employment to all employees whose work proves satisfactory.” The plaintiff, who had been hired under a contract of indefinite duration, alleged in her complaint for wrongful discharge that the provisions of the employee handbook had created an employme 1993Robertson v. Atlantic Richfield Petroleum, 371 Pa.Super. 49, 58 , 537 A.2d 814, 819 (1987), allocatur denied, 520 Pa. 590 , 551 A.2d 216 (1988). 2 In Richardson v. Charles Cole Memorial, 320 Pa.Super. 106 , 466 A.2d 1084 (1983), an employee handbook issued to the plaintiff contained a statement that the employer’s policy was to offer “continuous’employment to all employees whose work proves satisfactory.” The plaintiff, who had been hired under a contract of indefinite duration, alleged in her complaint for wrongful discharge that the provisions of the employee handbook had created an employme | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Pugh v. Holmes
green
1 sentence1990In Pennsylvania, "all employment is considered to be at-will absent: (1) sufficient additional consideration; (2) an agreement for a definite duration; (3) an agreement specifying that the employee will be discharged only for just cause; or (4) an applicable recognized public policy exception." Id. | 1 | 1990–1990 |