Shick v. Shirey

Summary

The court sustains preliminary objections to an at-will employee’s amended complaint alleging retaliatory discharge for filing a workers’ compensation claim. It concludes that Pennsylvania had not recognized a common-law cause of action for such a discharge and narrowly construes the public-policy exceptions to the at-will employment doctrine. The opinion distinguishes Pennsylvania appellate dicta and federal diversity decisions suggesting that such a claim might exist.

Holdings

1. Pennsylvania does not recognize a common-law cause of action for discharge of an at-will employee in retaliation for filing or pursuing a workers' compensation claim. The amended complaint therefore failed to state a recognized cause of action.
2. Highhouse did not change the law applicable to Shick's claim because it involved unemployment compensation and relied on a statute containing a specific anti-waiver policy; its reference to Macken and workers' compensation retaliation was dictum.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Pennsylvania recognizes a common-law wrongful-discharge cause of action for an at-will employee allegedly fired in retaliation for filing or pursuing a workers' compensation claim.
2. Whether Highhouse v. Avery Transportation's recognition of a wrongful-discharge claim involving unemployment compensation altered the rule applicable to retaliatory workers' compensation discharge.

Disposition

other