the public policy set forth in the PWCA has led the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to recognize such a limited circumstance when an at-will employee is terminated for filing a workers' compensation claim. See Shickv. Shirey, 552 Pa. 590, 603 (Pa. 1998); Rothrock v. Rothrock Motor Sales, Inc. 810 A.2d 114, 118 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002). As such, an employee may not be terminated for exercising his right to obtain workers' compensation benefits under the PWCA.
Thus, Schall may seek backpay, front pay, and emotional distress damages on her wrongful termination claim. See Signora v. Liberty Travel, Inc., 886 A.2d 284, 298 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005), overruled on other grounds, Andrews v. Cross Atl. Capital Partners, Inc., 158 A.3d 123 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017) (noting that jury awarded more than $127,000 in compensatory damages for emotional distress, aggravation, inconvenience, embarrassment and humiliation on wrongful discharge claim); Rothrock v. Rothrock Motor Sales, Inc., 53 Pa. D. & C.4th 411, 419 (Com. Pl. 2001), aff'd, 810 A.2d 114 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002), aff'd, 883 A.2d 511 (Pa. 2005) (affirming jury award of $192,000 in compensatory damages on wrongful discharge claim where "award fits easily within a calculation of the difference between [the plaintiff's] earnings before he was fired and his income after he was fired").
McLaughlin at 316-317. In spite of this clear language, Plaintiff argues that Rothrock v. Rothrock Motor Sales, 810 A.2d 114 (Pa.Super. 2003), somehow altered the landscape and that the issue is not whether the terminated party was directly invoking a right under a public policy but whether the employer's action "insults public policy." This is clearly not the case.
McLaughlin, 750 A.2d at 288. Furthermore, Pennsylvania courts have only "permitted employees to proceed with wrongful discharge cases when public policy concerns are clear," Rothrock v. Rothrock Motor Sales, Inc., 810 A.2d 114, 118 (Pa.Super.Ct. 2002), and when the actions of the respective plaintiffs directly implicate a Pennsylvania law, legal duty, or the exercise of a fundamental right. See e.g.,Shick v. Shirey, 716 A.2d 1231, 1237-38 (Pa. 1998) (employee terminated in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim); Rothrock, 810 A.2d at 114 (employee discharged for refusing to deter another employee from pursuing a workers' compensation claim); Highhouse v. Avery Transp., 660 A.2d 1374 (Pa.Super.Ct. 1995) (employee discharged for filing unemployment benefits claim); Raykovitz v. Kmart Corp., 665 A.2d 883 (Pa.Super.Ct. 1995); Field v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 565 A.2d 1170 (Pa.Super.Ct. 1989) (employee discharged for reporting violations of federal regulations regarding nuclear materials, an activity required by statute); and Reuther v. Fowler Williams, Inc., 386 A.2d 119 (Pa.Super.Ct. 1978) (employee discharged for serving on a jury, an obligation under state law).
See, e.g., Highhouse v. Avery Transp., 660 A.2d 1374 (Pa.Super. 1995) (holding that an employer violates public policy by terminating an at-will employee for filing an unemployment compensation claim); Kroen v. Bedway Sec. Agency, Inc., 633 A.2d 628 (Pa.Super. 1993) (holding that an employer violates public policy by discharging an employee who refuses to submit to a polygraph test);Field v. Phila. Elec. Co., 565 A.2d 1170 (Pa.Super. 1989) (holding that an employer violates public policy by releasing a whistleblower-employee who reported, as was his statutory duty, nuclear power violations); Reuther v. Fowler Williams, Inc., 386 A.2d 119 (Pa.Super. 1978) (holding that an employer violates public policy by terminating an employee who had taken time off in order to serve jury duty). See Docket No. 22, citing Rothrock v. Rothrock Motor Sales, Inc., 810 A.2d 114 (Pa.Super. 2002) and Shick v. Shirey, 716 A.2d 731 (Pa. 1998). 3. Count III, Breach of Contract — Defendant's Breach of Contract claim is premised on Plaintiffs alleged breach of the employment agreement negotiated and accepted by John Linton, Plaintiffs Chief Operations Officer.
No. 8 MAL 2003, Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the order of the Superior Court. Prior report: 810 A.2d 114. ORDER
. Rothrock, 810 A.2d 114, 120 (Pa. Super. 2002), aff'd, 883 A.2d 511 (Pa. 2005).
To prevent Appellant from, at minimum, having her case heard in court would violate "a positive, well-defined, universal public sentiment, deeply integrated in the beliefs of the people and in their conviction of what is just and right and in the interests of the common good." Rothrock v. Rothrock Motor Sales, Inc., 810 A.2d 114 (Pa.Super. 2002), appeal granted, 574 Pa. 704, 833 A.2d 138 (2003). ¶ 15 Appellees argue that a common law cause of action for sexual discrimination would "contravene the legislature's intent to limit employment discrimination claims to employers with four employees or more."
. Rothrock, 810 A.2d 114, 120 (Pa. Super. 2002), aff'd, 883 A.2d 511 (Pa. 2005).
Moreover, the Trial Court should not have used Title VII to analyze the sufficiency of Appellant's claim. In Rothrock the Supreme Court concluded that the Superior Court's adoption of a test utilized in Washington State to determine whether a plaintiff has adequately pled a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy was misplaced.Rothrock, 883 A.2d at 516 ( discussing Rothrock v. Rothrock Motor Sales, Inc., 810 A.2d 114, 117 (Pa.Super.2002)). Instead the Court held to “Pennsylvania's traditional view that exceptions to at-will termination should be few and carefully sculpted” and analyzed on a case-by-case basis in line with our precedent so as “not to erode an employer's inherent right to operate its business as it chooses.”