J-A04042-15

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

2015 PA Super 86

TIMOTHY J. STEWART,

 Appellant

 v.

FEDEX EXPRESS AND FEDERAL 

EXPRESS CORPORATION,

 Appellees

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1104 WDA 2014

Appeal from the Order Entered June 24, 2014

in the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County 

Civil Division, at No(s): 11222-2013

BEFORE: BOWES, OLSON, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.

OPINION BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED APRIL 17, 2015

Timothy J. Stewart (“Stewart” or “Mr. Stewart”) appeals from the June 

24, 2014 order which sustained the preliminary objections filed by FedEx 

Express and Federal Express Corporation (“FedEx”), and dismissed Stewart’s 

complaint. We affirm.

The trial court summarized the facts of this case as follows.

[Mr. Stewart] was employed at FedEx as a senior security 

specialist for almost six years, from April 9, 2007 through April 

17, 2013. On April 5, 2013, Mr. Stewart and Kelly Kraemer, 

another senior security specialist, traveled together for work 

from the FedEx Pittsburgh Ground headquarters to the FedEx 

office in Cranberry. Mr. Stewart used his [] personal vehicle for 

this trip. During their trip from one FedEx location to another, 

Mr. Kraemer asked Mr. Stewart if he could put his car keys in the 

glove compartment of Mr. Stewart’s car. Mr. Stewart gave Mr. 

Kraemer permission to put the keys in the glove box, but he 

advised Mr. Kraemer that he carried a handgun in the glove 

compartment. Mr. Stewart also informed Mr. Kraemer that he 

had a valid permit to carry a weapon. At all relevant times, Mr. 
J-A04042-15

- 2 -

Stewart maintained a Pennsylvania License to Carry Firearms 

issued by the Sheriff of Beaver County.

A few days later, on April 10, 2013, Mr. Stewart was 

summoned to a meeting at the Pittsburgh airport. At the 

meeting, Tom Herity, Manager of FedEx Zone Security in 

Chicago, informed Mr. Stewart that he was being investigated 

because of allegations concerning a handgun in the glove 

compartment of his car. A week later, on April 17, 2013, Mr. 

Stewart was terminated for violation of FedEx Policy 8.10, which, 

in relevant part, prohibits employees from possessing firearms or 

weapons on company property.

Specifically, the FedEx policy provides:

No firearms or weapons are permitted on Company 

property, in Corporate aircraft, in Company vehicles, 

or in Corporate buildings unless authorized by 

Corporate Security. Where federal, state or local 

laws impose different or additional requirements, the 

Company will abide by governing law.

Mr. Stewart identified the policy in his Complaint. There is 

no dispute that he was terminated because of the firearm in his 

car on April 5, 2013. Following his termination, Mr. Stewart 

initiated this lawsuit against FedEx alleging wrongful discharge. 

Mr. Stewart claims that his termination violates public policy.

Trial Court Opinion, 6/24/2014, at 2-3 (citations omitted).

FedEx filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer 

pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(4), which the trial court sustained by order of 

June 24, 2014. Stewart timely filed a notice of appeal. The trial court did 

not order Stewart to file a statement of errors complained of on appeal, and 

none was filed. 

Stewart presents one question for this Court’s consideration: “whether 

the [trial] court wrongfully dismissed [Mr. Stewart’s] case determining a 
J-A04042-15

- 3 -

question of fact whether a licensed firearm in a personal vehicle’s glove 

compartment is located on Mr. Stewart’s or [FedEx’s] property?” Stewart’s 

Brief at 4.

We consider Stewart’s question mindful of the following standard of 

review.

When reviewing the dismissal of a complaint based upon 

preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, we treat as 

true all well-pleaded material, factual averments and all 

inferences fairly deducible therefrom. Where the preliminary 

objections will result in the dismissal of the action, the objections 

may be sustained only in cases that are clear and free from 

doubt. To be clear and free from doubt that dismissal is 

appropriate, it must appear with certainty that the law would not 

permit recovery by the plaintiff upon the facts averred. Any 

doubt should be resolved by a refusal to sustain the objections. 

Moreover, we review the trial court’s decision for an abuse of 

discretion or an error of law.

B.N. Excavating, Inc. v. PBC Hollow-A, L.P., 71 A.3d 274, 277-78 (Pa. 

Super. 2013) (en banc) (quoting Ira G. Steffy & Son, Inc. v. Citizens 

Bank of Pennsylvania, 7 A.3d 278, 282–83 (Pa. Super. 2010)). 

Stewart sets forth three arguments in support of his position that the 

trial court erred in dismissing his complaint on preliminary objections. First, 

he argues that the trial court erred in holding that FedEx could terminate 

him for “no reason” when FedEx never informed him that he was terminated 

for “no reason.” Stewart’s Brief at 8. Next, Stewart claims that the trial 

court erred in ruling that FedEx could terminate him based upon an 

ambiguous company policy. Id. at 8-9. Finally, Stewart maintains that 
J-A04042-15

- 4 -

FedEx’s termination of him violated an important Pennsylvania public policy, 

namely, the right to bear arms. Id. at 9-15.

This Court has summarized Pennsylvania’s at-will employment doctrine 

as follows.1

“In Pennsylvania, absent a statutory or contractual provision to 

the contrary, either party may terminate an employment 

relationship for any or no reason.” Weaver v. Harpster, 975 

A.2d 555, 562 (Pa. 2009). “[A]s a general rule, there is no 

common law cause of action against an employer for termination 

of an at-will employment relationship.” Id. at 563.

An employee may bring a cause of action for a 

termination of that relationship only in the most 

limited circumstances, where the termination 

implicates a clear mandate of public policy. In our 

judicial system, the power of the courts to declare 

pronouncements of public policy is sharply restricted. 

Rather, it is for the legislature to formulate the public 

policies of the Commonwealth. The right of a court 

to declare what is or is not in accord with public 

policy exists only when a given policy is so obviously 

for or against public health, safety, morals, or 

welfare that there is a virtual unanimity of opinion in 

regard to it. Only in the clearest of cases may a 

court make public policy the basis of its decision. To 

determine the public policy of the Commonwealth, 

we examine the precedent within Pennsylvania, 

looking to our own Constitution, court decisions, and 

statutes promulgated by our legislature.

Id. at 563 (quotation and citations omitted). 

Applying this standard, Pennsylvania courts have found 

actionable exceptions where the employee was terminated for 

filing a claim for worker’s compensation benefits, Shick v. 

Shirey, 716 A.2d 1231 (Pa. 1998); for filing a claim for 

unemployment benefits, Highhouse v. Avery Transportation, 

 

1 Stewart does not claim that he was employed by FedEx pursuant to a 

contract.
J-A04042-15

- 5 -

660 A.2d 1374 (Pa. Super. 1995); for failing to submit to a 

polygraph test where a statute prohibited employers from so 

requiring, Kroen v. Bedway Security Agency, Inc., 633 A.2d 

628 (Pa. Super. 1993); for complying with a statutory duty to 

report violations to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Field v. 

Philadelphia Electric Co., 565 A.2d 1170 (Pa. Super. 1989); 

and for serving jury duty, Reuther v. Fowler & Williams, Inc., 

386 A.2d 119 (Pa. Super. 1978).

Courts have found no public policy exception where the 

employee was terminated as a result of sexual discrimination by 

an employer not covered by the Pennsylvania Human Relations 

Act, Weaver, supra; for complaining about violations of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act, McLaughlin v. 

Gastrointestinal Specialists, Inc., 750 A.2d 283 (Pa. 2000); 

for expressing concerns that the employer’s product was unsafe, 

Geary v. U.S. Steel Corporation, 319 A.2d 174 (Pa. 1974); for 

disengaging an illegal surveillance system, Hineline v. 

Stroudsburg Electric Supply Co., 559 A.2d 566 (Pa. Super. 

1989), appeal denied 574 A.2d 70 (Pa. 1989); or for complaining 

about the waste of taxpayer money, Rossi v. Pennsylvania 

State University, 489 A.2d 828 (Pa. Super. 1985).

In sum, “an employer (1) cannot require an employee to 

commit a crime, (2) cannot prevent an employee from 

complying with a statutorily imposed duty, and (3) cannot 

discharge an employee when [specifically] prohibited from doing 

so by statute.” Donahue v. Federal Exp. Corp., 753 A.2d 238, 

244 (Pa. Super. 2000) (quoting Spierling v. First Am. Home 

Health Servs., Inc., 737 A.2d 1250, 1252 (Pa. Super. 1999)). 

Outside of those categories of our legislature’s expression of 

public policy, a court may find a public policy exception that will 

sustain a wrongful termination action only if the public policy “is 

so obviously for or against public health, safety, morals, or 

welfare that there is a virtual unanimity of opinion in regard to 

it.” Weaver, 975 A.2d at 563. 

Mikhail v. Pennsylvania Organization for Women in Early Recovery, 

63 A.3d 313, 316-17 (Pa. Super. 2013). 

From the above it is immediately clear that Stewart’s first two 

arguments warrant no relief. He has no cause of action against FedEx for 
J-A04042-15

- 6 -

wrongful termination unless the termination violates public policy. 

Therefore, it matters not whether FedEx articulated no reason or a bad 

reason for terminating Stewart’s employment, whether its firearm policy is 

vague, or whether Stewart’s gun was on his property or FedEx’s property 

when it was in his glovebox. The only relevant question is whether Stewart 

has pled that he was terminated for a reason that violates a policy of this 

Commonwealth that “is so obviously for or against public health, safety, 

morals, or welfare that there is a virtual unanimity of opinion in regard to it.” 

Weaver, 975 A.2d at 563. 

In his complaint, Stewart claimed that his termination was in violation 

of Pennsylvania’s public policy to guard the rights “of citizens of 

Pennsylvania to protect themselves.” Complaint, 8/7/2013, at 5. He 

averred that this policy was manifest in Article I, Section 21 of the 

Pennsylvania Constitution, and in 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106. Stewart also 

referenced in his complaint the decision of the Kentucky Supreme Court in 

Mitchell v. University of Kentucky, 366 S.W.3d 895 (Ky. 2012). For the 

following reasons, we hold that Stewart has failed to identify any 

Pennsylvania public policy which has been violated by his termination.

Article I, Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides that the 

“right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State 

shall not be questioned.” Pennsylvania Constitution, Art. I, § 21. The 

statute Stewart invokes is a provision of the Crimes Code entitled “firearms 
J-A04042-15

- 7 -

not to be carried without a license.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106. Therein our 

legislature declared, inter alia, that it is a crime to carry a firearm in a 

vehicle without a valid license. 

This Court has noted that “neither the Second Amendment to the 

United States Constitution, nor the Pennsylvania Constitution, bestows on 

any person the right to carry a concealed firearm or transport a loaded 

firearm in a vehicle.” Commonwealth v. McKown, 79 A.3d 678, 690 (Pa. 

Super. 2013). Similarly, it is evident from the language of 18 Pa.C.S. 

§ 6106 that that statute criminalizing the conduct of carrying a firearm in a 

vehicle without a license does not conversely create a right to carry a 

licensed firearm in a car. 

In Mitchell, the plaintiff was fired for having a licensed firearm in his 

car on the property of his employer, the University of Kentucky. The 

Supreme Court of Kentucky held that Mitchell “established that his discharge 

was contrary to a fundamental and well-defined public policy, i.e., the right 

to bear arms, as evidenced by existing statutory provisions,” in particular 

K.R.S. 237.106, which provides:

(1) No person, including but not limited to an employer, who is 

the owner, lessee, or occupant of real property shall prohibit any 

person who is legally entitled to possess a firearm from 

possessing a firearm, part of a firearm, ammunition, or 

ammunition component in a vehicle on the property.

* * *

(4) An employer that fires, disciplines, demotes, or otherwise 

punishes an employee who is lawfully exercising a right 
J-A04042-15

- 8 -

guaranteed by this section and who is engaging in conduct in 

compliance with this statute shall be liable in civil damages. An 

employee may seek and the court shall grant an injunction 

against an employer who is violating the provisions of this 

section when it is found that the employee is in compliance with 

the provisions of this section.

Mitchell, 366 S.W.3d at 902 (quoting K.R.S. 237.106).

Stewart points to no Pennsylvania statute comparable to the Kentucky 

statute at issue in Mitchell. Indeed, as the trial court noted, such 

legislation had been proposed, but not enacted, in Pennsylvania at the time 

of Stewart’s termination. Trial Court Opinion, 6/24/2014, at 22-25 

(discussing Senate Bill 1438 (2011) and House Bill 2243 (2014)). Therefore, 

the reasoning of Mitchell is inapplicable because, unlike Kentucky’s 

legislature, our legislature has not declared that Pennsylvania public policy is 

violated by FedEx’s termination of Stewart.

Thus, the facts alleged in Stewart’s complaint do not establish that 

FedEx (1) required him to commit a crime, (2) prevented him from 

complying with a statutorily imposed duty, (3) discharged him in violation of 

a statute, or (4) otherwise terminated him in violation of a public policy that 

“is so obviously for or against public health, safety, morals, or welfare that 

there is a virtual unanimity of opinion in regard to it.” Weaver, 975 A.2d at 

563. Accordingly, Pennsylvania law does not permit recovery on the facts 

averred, and the trial court properly dismissed Stewart’s complaint.

Order affirmed. 

Judge Bowes joins the opinion.
J-A04042-15

- 9 -

Judge Olson concurs in the result.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 4/17/2015