recognizing independent authority of courts to discern public policy in absence of legislation but rejecting claim that legislature’s failure to amend Workers’ Compensation Act to include provisions for filing claim for retaliatory discharge rendered Court powerless to recognize that cause of action; stating: “No sound analysis can be drawn from legislative silence. An equally compelling argument may be made that the legislature has not perceived that retaliatory discharge for filing of workers’ compensation claims has become such a pervasive problem that it requires the experience of an administrative agency”
How later courts described this case
- recognizing independent authority of courts to discern public policy in absence of legislation but rejecting claim that legislature’s failure to amend Workers’ Compensation Act to include provisions for filing claim for retaliatory discharge rendered Court powerless to recognize that cause of action; stating: “No sound analysis can be drawn from legislative silence. An equally compelling argument may be made that the legislature has not perceived that retaliatory discharge for filing of workers’ compensation claims has become such a pervasive problem that it requires the experience of an administrative agency”
- holding that the “termination of an at-will employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim violates public policy” despite the lack of a retaliation provision in the statute
- holding that an at-will employee who alleges retaliatory discharge for the filing of a workers’ compensation claim has stated a cause of action under Pennsylvania law
- holding that “a cause of action exists under Pennsylvania law for wrongful discharge of an employee who files a claim for workers’ compensation benefits”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FLAHERTY, Chief Justice,
concurring.
I join the majority but write to express that our holding today does not create or indeed expand a new cause of action. It is consistent with Geary v. U.S. Steel Corporation, 456 Pa. 171 , 319 A.2d 174 (1974). The at-will employment doctrine remains the law in Pennsylvania and exceptions are extremely limited.
NEWMAN, J., joins in this concurring opinion.