It is well established in Pennsylvania that unless a corporate policy is offered as a binding term of employment, there can be no cause of action for violation of that policy. A company may indeed have a policy upon which they intend to act, given certain circumstances or events, but unless they communicate that policy as a part of a definite offer of employment they are free to change as events may require. H.R. 2.4.02 was to be a binding term of his at-will employment, therefore, Seiple has failed to state a breach of contract claim. Accordingly, Count II is dismissed. Community argues that Pennsylvania does not recognize a requirement of good faith and fair dealing in at-will employment contracts.
Community is correct.
Pennsylvania does not recognize a claim for breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing as an independent cause of action. While there may be an express or implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in an employment contract, a breach of such covenant is a breach of contract action, not an independent action for a breach of a duty of good faith and fair dealing. Accordingly, Count IV of Seiple's complaint is dismissed. Community counters that such actions did not constitute extreme or outrageous behavior. Pennsylvania law only allows recovery for intentional infliction of emotional distress in egregious cases involving conduct which is extreme, outrageous intentional or reckless and which causes severe emotional distress.