Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): not to erode an employer’s inherent right to operate its business as it chooses. Rothrock, supra; Shick, supra; Hunter v. Port Auth. of Allegheny County, 277 Pa.Super. 4, 419 A.2d 631 (1980) (recognizing a public policy against unnecessarily stigmatizing former offenders, finding that a public employer could not deny a former offender employment on the basis of a prior conviction for which the offender had been pardoned, unless the conviction was reasonably related to fitness to perform the job sought); Highhouse, 443 Pa.Super. 120, 660 A.2d 1374 (concluding that an employee was wrongfully discharged for filing an unemployment compensation claim); Raykovitz v. K Mart Corp., 445 Pa.Super. 378, 665 A.2d 833 (1995) (same); Kroen v. Bedway Sec. Agency, 430 Pa.Super. 83, 633 A.2d 628 (1993) (<HOLDING>); Reuther v. Fowler & Williams, Inc., 255 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that employee stated claim by alleging he was wrongfully discharged for refusing to commit criminal act for which he would be held personally liable (B) holding that evidence that a polygraph test was offered to or refused by a defendant was not admissible (C) holding that the plaintiffs complaint stated an enforceable claim for wrongful discharge where the employee was wrongfully discharged in retaliation for refusing to testify falsely in a medical malpractice case (D) holding that an employee was wrongfully discharged for refusing to submit to a polygraph test (E) holding admissibility of polygraph evidence should be resolved under fedrevid 403 balancing test but reliability of polygraph test may be included to determine how probative particular polygraph test is
Output (English): holding that employee stated claim by alleging he was wrongfully discharged for refusing to commit criminal act for which he would be held personally liable