just cause requirement (Pennsylvania) · Go Syfert
← Pennsylvania issues

just cause requirement in Pennsylvania

6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1985–2025 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Yaindl v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. Standard Pump-Aldrich Divisiongreen
pasuperct · 1980 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1985–1985
2 sentences

1985One commentator has read this court’s opinion in Yaindl v. Inger-soll-Rand Co., 281 Pa.Super. 560 , 422 A.2d 611 (1980), as in effect abrogating the employment-at-will rule by implying a just cause requirement into employment contracts.

1985One commentator has read this court’s opinion in Yaindl v. Inger-soll-Rand Co., 281 Pa.Super. 560 , 422 A.2d 611 (1980), as in effect abrogating the employment-at-will rule by implying a just cause requirement into employment contracts.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
County of Allegheny v. Allegheny County Prison Employees Independent Union green
pa · 1977
1 sentence

2025Id.

12025–2025
York County Transportation Authority v. Teamsters Local Union 430 green
pacommwct · 2000
1 sentence

2003Id. at 1217-18 . 12 .

12003–2003
Philadelphia Housing Authority v. Union of Security Officers 1 green
pa · 1983
2 sentences

1997An extremely narrow exception first set forth in Philadelphia Housing Authority v. Union of Security Officers # 1, 500 Pa. 213 , 455 A.2d 625 (1983), the manifestly unreasonable doctrine has been applied to all public employees except police officers and fire fighters.

1997An extremely narrow exception first set forth in Philadelphia Housing Authority v. Union of Security Officers # 1, 500 Pa. 213 , 455 A.2d 625 (1983), the manifestly unreasonable doctrine has been applied to all public employees except police officers and fire fighters.

11997–1997
City of Philadelphia v. Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 5 green
pacommwct · 1990
1 sentence

1993City of Philadelphia v. Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 5 (Officer Thomas Murphy), 132 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 352, 572 A.2d 1298 (1990), appeal denied, 527 Pa. 626 , 592 A.2d 46 (1991).

11993–1993
Banas v. Matthews International Corp. green
pa · 1985
2 sentences

1988Banas, 348 Pa.Super. at 480 , 502 A.2d at 645 .

1988Banas, 348 Pa.Super. at 480 , 502 A.2d at 645 .

11988–1988

Where else courts name it

NC 10 (2012–2024) WI 8 (1999–2023) OH 8 (1984–2024) IA 7 (1983–2024) VT 7 (1977–2023) PA 6 (1985–2025) NJ 5 (1985–2018) UT 5 (2008–2019) LA 5 (1995–2015) MD 3 (2004–2014) CA 3 (2004–2022) IL 3 (2011–2013) IN 3 (1998–2010) NH 3 (1994–2007) NY 2 (1994–2018) MA 2 (1993–1996)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check