at-will employment doctrine in Pennsylvania

2001There is an exception to the at-will employment rule whereby, under limited circumstances, it is illegal to terminate an employee if the firing constitutes a violation of a “clear mandate of public policy.” Geary v. United States Steel Corporation, 456 Pa. 171, 185 , 319 A.2d 174, 180 (1974).

2001There is an exception to the at-will employment rule whereby, under limited circumstances, it is illegal to terminate an employee if the firing constitutes a violation of a “clear mandate of public policy.” Geary v. United States Steel Corporation, 456 Pa. 171, 185 , 319 A.2d 174, 180 (1974).

2005Mamlin v. Genoe, 340 Pa. 320 , 17 A.2d 407, 409 (1941). ¶ 11 Further, “[t]o state a public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine, the employee must point to a clear public policy articulated in the constitution, in legislation, an administrative regulation, or a judicial decision.” Hunger v. Grand Central Sanitation 447 Pa.Super. 575 , 670 A.2d 173, 175 (1996), appeal denied, 545 Pa. 664 , 681 A.2d 178 (1996) (citing Jacques v. Akzo International Salt, Inc., 422 Pa.Super. 419 , 619 A.2d 748 (1993)). ¶ 12 Appellant contends “that there is a clear mandate of public policy against s

2005Mamlin v. Genoe, 340 Pa. 320 , 17 A.2d 407, 409 (1941). ¶ 11 Further, “[t]o state a public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine, the employee must point to a clear public policy articulated in the constitution, in legislation, an administrative regulation, or a judicial decision.” Hunger v. Grand Central Sanitation 447 Pa.Super. 575 , 670 A.2d 173, 175 (1996), appeal denied, 545 Pa. 664 , 681 A.2d 178 (1996) (citing Jacques v. Akzo International Salt, Inc., 422 Pa.Super. 419 , 619 A.2d 748 (1993)). ¶ 12 Appellant contends “that there is a clear mandate of public policy against s

2009See McLaughlin, 561 Pa. 307 , 750 A.2d 283 (finding that an at-will employee did not state a claim for wrongful discharge under the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine based solely upon alleged retaliatory termination of her employment in violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act); Tourville, 353 Pa.Super. 53 , 508 A.2d 1263 (holding that the discharge of an employee hospitalized for illness did not violate public policy); Martin, 354 Pa.Super. 199 , 511 A.2d 830 (finding no cause of action where an employee was discharged in retaliation for placing an advertis

2009See McLaughlin, 561 Pa. 307 , 750 A.2d 283 (finding that an at-will employee did not state a claim for wrongful discharge under the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine based solely upon alleged retaliatory termination of her employment in violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act); Tourville, 353 Pa.Super. 53 , 508 A.2d 1263 (holding that the discharge of an employee hospitalized for illness did not violate public policy); Martin, 354 Pa.Super. 199 , 511 A.2d 830 (finding no cause of action where an employee was discharged in retaliation for placing an advertis

2021Public policy exceptions to the at-will employment doctrine, however, have been permitted in only very limited circumstances: “Pennsylvania’s traditional view [is] that exceptions to at-will termination should be few and carefully sculpted so as to not erode an employer’s inherent right to operate its business as it chooses.” Rothrock v. Rothrock Motor Sales, Inc., 883 A.2d 511, 515-16 (Pa. 2005).

2015Rothrock v. Rothrock Motor Sales, Inc., 883 A.2d 511, 515 (Pa.2005).

2017Subsequently, in Shick v. Shirey, 552 Pa. 590 , 716 A.2d 1231 (1998), the Supreme Court first announced a public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine.

2017Subsequently, in Shick v. Shirey, 552 Pa. 590 , 716 A.2d 1231 (1998), the Supreme Court first announced a public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine.

2024Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Immunity The principle that judges must be free to perform their judicial function without the specter of liability in a civil action has deep roots in English common law.104 A key premise of the doctrine of judicial immunity is that it exists not to shield tortfeasors, but rather to protect the public’s interest in ensuring that certain individuals in society are able to 102 Id. 103 See, e.g., Weaver v. Harpster, 975 A.2d 555 (Pa. 2009) (overruling a Superior Court decision holding that the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and the Equal Rights Amendment provided a

2024The at-will employment doctrine as adopted in Pennsylvania provides that, generally, an “employer and employee each have the power to terminate the employment relationship for any or no reason.” Weaver, 975 A.2d at 557 n.3.

2019Though the rule is a procedural safeguard, a court's primary task is to ascertain and enforce [the parties'] intent.” Greene v. Oliver Realty, 363 Pa.Super. 534 , 526 A.2d 1192, 1199 (1987), appeal denied, 517 - 24 - J-A16036- 19 Pa. 607 , 536 A.2d 1331 (1987) (holding the at-will employment presumption will be overcome if the employee shows with clarity and specificity that the parties contracted for a definite period); see also Marsh v. Boyle, 366 Pa.Super. 1 , 530 A.2d 491, 493 (1987) (reasoning “parties' intentions regarding the agreement, gleaned from the surrounding circumstances, may en

2019Though the rule is a procedural safeguard, a court's primary task is to ascertain and enforce [the parties'] intent.” Greene v. Oliver Realty, 363 Pa.Super. 534 , 526 A.2d 1192, 1199 (1987), appeal denied, 517 - 24 - J-A16036- 19 Pa. 607 , 536 A.2d 1331 (1987) (holding the at-will employment presumption will be overcome if the employee shows with clarity and specificity that the parties contracted for a definite period); see also Marsh v. Boyle, 366 Pa.Super. 1 , 530 A.2d 491, 493 (1987) (reasoning “parties' intentions regarding the agreement, gleaned from the surrounding circumstances, may en

2019Though the rule is a procedural safeguard, a court's primary task is to ascertain and enforce [the parties'] intent.” Greene v. Oliver Realty, 363 Pa.Super. 534 , 526 A.2d 1192, 1199 (1987), appeal denied, 517 - 24 - J-A16036- 19 Pa. 607 , 536 A.2d 1331 (1987) (holding the at-will employment presumption will be overcome if the employee shows with clarity and specificity that the parties contracted for a definite period); see also Marsh v. Boyle, 366 Pa.Super. 1 , 530 A.2d 491, 493 (1987) (reasoning “parties' intentions regarding the agreement, gleaned from the surrounding circumstances, may en

2019Though the rule is a procedural safeguard, a court's primary task is to ascertain and enforce [the parties'] intent.” Greene v. Oliver Realty, 363 Pa.Super. 534 , 526 A.2d 1192, 1199 (1987), appeal denied, 517 - 24 - J-A16036- 19 Pa. 607 , 536 A.2d 1331 (1987) (holding the at-will employment presumption will be overcome if the employee shows with clarity and specificity that the parties contracted for a definite period); see also Marsh v. Boyle, 366 Pa.Super. 1 , 530 A.2d 491, 493 (1987) (reasoning “parties' intentions regarding the agreement, gleaned from the surrounding circumstances, may en

2018See Stumpp, 658 A.2d at 336 .”).

1997See Stumpp, 658 A.2d at 336 .

2005Mamlin v. Genoe, 340 Pa. 320 , 17 A.2d 407, 409 (1941). ¶ 11 Further, “[t]o state a public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine, the employee must point to a clear public policy articulated in the constitution, in legislation, an administrative regulation, or a judicial decision.” Hunger v. Grand Central Sanitation 447 Pa.Super. 575 , 670 A.2d 173, 175 (1996), appeal denied, 545 Pa. 664 , 681 A.2d 178 (1996) (citing Jacques v. Akzo International Salt, Inc., 422 Pa.Super. 419 , 619 A.2d 748 (1993)). ¶ 12 Appellant contends “that there is a clear mandate of public policy against s

2005Mamlin v. Genoe, 340 Pa. 320 , 17 A.2d 407, 409 (1941). ¶ 11 Further, “[t]o state a public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine, the employee must point to a clear public policy articulated in the constitution, in legislation, an administrative regulation, or a judicial decision.” Hunger v. Grand Central Sanitation 447 Pa.Super. 575 , 670 A.2d 173, 175 (1996), appeal denied, 545 Pa. 664 , 681 A.2d 178 (1996) (citing Jacques v. Akzo International Salt, Inc., 422 Pa.Super. 419 , 619 A.2d 748 (1993)). ¶ 12 Appellant contends “that there is a clear mandate of public policy against s

2025The public policy exceptions to the at-will employment doctrine are “narrow” and fall into three categories: “an employer (1) cannot require an employee to commit a crime, (2) cannot prevent an employee from complying with a statutorily imposed duty, and (3) cannot discharge an employee when specifically prohibited from doing so by statute.” Hennessy v. Santiago, 708 A.2d 1269, 1273 (Pa.Super. 1998) (abrogated on other grounds).

1999Id. ¶ 14 Our Court stated in Hennessy v. Santiago, 708 A.2d 1269 (Pa.Super.1998), It is well established that Pennsylvania recognizes the at-will employment doctrine.

2013I also take issue with the Majority’s reliance on McGonagle v. Union Fidelity Corp., 388 Pa.Super. 223 , 556 A.2d 878 (Pa.Super.1989), to dismiss Appellant’s other assertion of a public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine.

2000The public policy at issue should be the type which “strikes at the heart of [the] citizen’s social right[s], duties, and responsibilities,” McGonagle v. Union Fidelity Corp., 383 Pa. Super. 223, 231 , 556 A.2d 878, 882 (1989), alloc, denied, 525 Pa. 584 , 575 A.2d 115 (1990), and “[a]bsent legislation, the judiciary must define the cause of action in case-by-case determinations.” Reitz v. Persing, 831 F. Supp. 410, 414-15 (M.D.

2009Whatever the reason for the small-employer exemption, we cannot enforce the public policy articulated in Section 952 of the PHRA while simultaneously ignoring the definition of employer in Section 954(b), or the specific conduct characterized as unlawful in Section 955. 13 Indeed, our precedent adhering to the at-will employment presumption indicates that we can only declare the public policy of this Commonwealth where it is “so obviously for or against public health, safety, morals, or welfare that there is a virtual unanimity of opinion in regard to it....” Mamlin, 17 A.2d at 409 .

2009Whatever the reason for the small-employer exemption, we cannot enforce the public policy articulated in Section 952 of the PHRA while simultaneously ignoring the definition of employer in Section 954(b), or the specific conduct characterized as unlawful in Section 955. [13] Indeed, our precedent adhering to the at-will employment presumption indicates that we can only declare the public policy of this Commonwealth where it is "so obviously for or against public health, safety, morals, or welfare that there is a virtual unanimity of opinion in regard to it...." Mamlin, 17 A.2d at 409 .

1996Under the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine, [a]n employer's liability for wrongful discharge rests on whether a "well-recognized facet of public policy is at stake," Macken v. Lord Corp., 402 Pa.Super. 1, 4 , 585 A.2d 1106, 1108 (1991), a policy which "strikes at the heart of [a] citizen's social right, duties, and responsibilities." Field v. Philadelphia Electric Co., [ 388 Pa.Super. 400, 418 , 565 A.2d 1170, 1179 (1989)].

1996Under the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine, [a]n employer's liability for wrongful discharge rests on whether a "well-recognized facet of public policy is at stake," Macken v. Lord Corp., 402 Pa.Super. 1, 4 , 585 A.2d 1106, 1108 (1991), a policy which "strikes at the heart of [a] citizen's social right, duties, and responsibilities." Field v. Philadelphia Electric Co., [ 388 Pa.Super. 400, 418 , 565 A.2d 1170, 1179 (1989)].

1998The public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine is applicable in the following instances: “(1) the employer requires the employee to commit a crime; (2) the employer prevents the employee from complying with a statutory duty; or (3) the employer fires the employee in direct contravention of a specific statutory prohi bition.” Id. at 177 , citing Shick v. Shirey, 456 Pa. Super. 668 , 691 A.2d 511 (1997) (en banc).

1998The public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine is applicable in the following instances: “(1) the employer requires the employee to commit a crime; (2) the employer prevents the employee from complying with a statutory duty; or (3) the employer fires the employee in direct contravention of a specific statutory prohi bition.” Id. at 177 , citing Shick v. Shirey, 456 Pa. Super. 668 , 691 A.2d 511 (1997) (en banc).

2024Judicial and Quasi-Judicial Immunity The principle that judges must be free to perform their judicial function without the specter of liability in a civil action has deep roots in English common law.104 A key premise of the doctrine of judicial immunity is that it exists not to shield tortfeasors, but rather to protect the public’s interest in ensuring that certain individuals in society are able to 102 Id. 103 See, e.g., Weaver v. Harpster, 975 A.2d 555 (Pa. 2009) (overruling a Superior Court decision holding that the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and the Equal Rights Amendment provided a

2024The justification for doing so is that it is impossible to know whether the claim is well founded until the case has been tried, and that to submit all officials, the innocent as well as the guilty, to the burden of a trial and to the inevitable danger of its outcome, would dampen the ardor of all but the most resolute, or the most irresponsible, in the unflinching discharge of their duties.107 In Petition of Dwyer, this Court, guided by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Butz v. Economou,108 afforded “quasi-judicial immunity” to state agency officials performing adjudicative functi

2024The justification for doing so is that it is impossible to know whether the claim is well founded until the case has been tried, and that to submit all officials, the innocent as well as the guilty, to the burden of a trial and to the inevitable danger of its outcome, would dampen the ardor of all but the most resolute, or the most irresponsible, in the unflinching discharge of their duties.107 In Petition of Dwyer, this Court, guided by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Butz v. Economou,108 afforded “quasi-judicial immunity” to state agency officials performing adjudicative functi