One of the most important concepts affecting nearly everyone who has a job other than the self-employed is that of the so-called at-will doctrine. Stated simply, unless there is a specific contract of employment which provides otherwise, an employer may terminate the employment of an employee for nearly any reason. It is “at the will” of the employer.
This doctrine is one of the bedrocks of the American economy, and while many exceptions to the rule may have developed through the eons, fundamentally, the rule is intact. Among the exceptions, the most obvious are that a person may not be fired because of race, religion, gender, health, or similar circumstances. Many of these exceptions are the result of post-World War II legislation; others have developed by common law, i.e., decisions of the courts.
Since most employees do not have contracts of employment which guarantee employment over a given period, the at-will doctrine is one of the most pervasive rules in our culture. And the community of employers is always alert to any ruling that might jeopardize the concept.
In a recent Lancaster County decision, Santiago v. Protech Mechanical Contractors, Inc., the ruling illustrates yet another limitation to the doctrine. In 2004, Santiago suffered a work-related shoulder injury which kept him from working over a protracted period. Under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, Santiago was entitled to benefits which continued for nearly two years when he was thought to be well enough to return to work. After Santiago spent a brief period back on the job, it was determined that he could not perform his duties because of his injury; it was apparent that he suffered permanent injuries.
However, alleging that he was guilty of excessive absence and failure to notify his employer in advance of the absences, the employer terminated his employment which also caused his Worker’s Compensation benefits to end. Santiago alleged that the employer and the Worker’s Compensation insurance carrier conspired maliciously to fire him without real cause and thereby cause him to lose the compensation for his permanent injuries that he would otherwise be entitled to.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has earlier ruled (Schick v. Shirey, 1998) that a person may not be fired for applying for Worker’s Compensation; and basing its opinion in part on that decision, the Lancaster County Court found in Santiago’s favor, and remanded the matter to the trial judge.
This trial judge was ordered to take additional testimony for the purpose of determining if there had been a conspiracy between the employer and the insurance company to terminate Santiago’s employment.
The consequences in such a matter are enormous since Santiago was permanently unemployable as a result of the accident, and he would therefore qualify for many years of disability insurance. Small wonder that a worker’s compensation insurance company (which pays out the benefits) and the employer (whose insurance premiums would be directly affected by a permanent disability) might be tempted to conspire.
In light of the earlier Supreme Court ruling, this decision should not be a surprise; but it does illustrate one more circumstance in which the employer’s at-will protection is lost. Chip, chip, chip.
– Ken Butera