# M.A.E. v. Doe & Roe

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · November 13, 1989 · 388 Pa. Super. 589

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9517708

## Case

- **Full name:** M.A.E. Administratrix of the Estate of J.J.E., Appellant, v. DOE & ROE, Owners of a Restaurant, Appellees
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 13, 1989
- **Citations:** 388 Pa. Super. 589; 566 A.2d 285; 51 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 529; 1989 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3379
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Popovich
- **Judges:** Cavanaugh, McEwen and Popovich
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9517708

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating AIDS a disability or handicap under PHRA

## Opinion text

POPOVICH, Judge:
This is an appeal from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County sustaining preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer and dismissing appellant’s complaint. J.J.E., appellant, filed a complaint alleging tortious discrimination against his employer, Doe & Roe, owners of a restaurant, for wrongful termination of employment. Appellant contends he was discharged from his job for being homosexual and contracting Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, i.e., AIDS. Appellant claims this is against public policy.
The recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Clay v. Advanced Computer Applications, Inc., 370 Pa.Super. 497 , 536 A.2d 1375 (1988), allocatur granted, 518 Pa. 647 , 544 A.2d 959 (1988), rev’d in part, 522 Pa. 86 , 559 A.2d 917 (1989), is on point. The Court stated that the intended forum for addressing grievances of this sort is the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. There was no intent to give broad, unrestricted access to civil actions, outside the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, alleging discriminatory termination of at-will employment. Appellant’s failure to exercise the proper method for addressing his grievances forecloses him from pursuing judicial recourse.
The judgment of the lower court is affirmed.
CAVANAUGH, J., files a concurring statement.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9517708. Public record. Not legal advice.