The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recently held that discharge of an at-will employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim is against public policy. Most employers work under the basic assumption that unless the employee has a contract to the contrary, the employer may discharge an employee at any time, for any reason, with or without cause. Generally speaking, that is true; either employer or employee may terminate an employment relationship at any time or for any reason, unless restricted by statute or contract. The presumption is that all employment relationships are at-will unless one of the parties can demonstrate that a contract for a specified term, express or implied, exists.
The at-will presumption can be overcome in several ways, one of which is to show that there is a recognized public policy concern which would prohibit discharge.
This exception is not without limits, however. According to the Superior Court, in order to establish a wrongful discharge action based upon discharge of an at-will employee in violation of public policy, the employer’s conduct must “go to the heart of a citizen’s rights, duties, and responsibilities.” McLaughlin v. Gastrointestinal Specialists, Inc. In one case, an employee was fired for voicing his concerns over his employer’s inadequate testing of its products. The court dismissed the employee’s lawsuit, finding that his termination did not “threaten clear mandates of public policy.”
Generally, public policy exceptions to the at-will employment doctrine fall into three basic categories:
- the employer cannot compel an employee to commit a crime
- the employer cannot prevent an employee from complying with a legally imposed duty
- the employer cannot discharge an employee when specifically prohibited from doing so by statute
- For example, in the 1950s California recognized a non-statutory cause of action on public policy grounds where an employer discharged an employee for refusing to lie under oath.
In Pennsylvania, the courts have recognized several public policy exceptions to the at-will presumption, such as where an employee was dismissed for serving on a jury and where an employee was dismissed for filing an unemployment compensation claim.
In the Pennsylvania Supreme Court case noted at the outset, Shick v. Shirey, the court was presented with a question of first impression concerning the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine. The issue was whether Pennsylvania recognizes a common law cause of action for wrongful discharge of an at-will employee for the filing of a workers’ compensation claim. The court held that an at-will employee who claims that he or she was discharged in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim has a cause of action for which relief may be granted. This suggests that any retaliatory firing is potentially suspect if the employee is exercising a lawful right.
What it comes down to is a basic matter of fairness. If the employer is permitted to discharge an employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim, the effect is that the worker is penalized for exercising his rights – rights granted by statute. Since the Workers’ Compensation Act prevents an employee from suing his employer in a common law tort action, the Act is the only recourse an employee has to obtain compensation for injuries sustained on the job.
Under the Act, an employer is given immunity from lawsuits by employees, thereby avoiding potentially large damages from a tort action, while the employee receives a fixed set of benefits. Prior to this decision, an employee might be fired in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim, potentially discouraging many employees from doing so. With this ruling, an employee now has recourse against his employer for wrongful discharge.
Since both employers and employees are affected by this decision, it is important for each to be aware of its ramifications and possible extension to other retaliatory conduct by the employer.
— Denise Turner