Title: Rothrock v. Rothrock Motor Sales, Inc. (Concurring Opinion)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 244 MAP 2003
State: Pennsylvania
Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: September 29, 2005

[J-65-2004] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT THEODORE C. ROTHROCK AND DOUGLAS ROTHROCK, Appellees v. ROTHROCK MOTOR SALES, INC., Appellant : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 244 MAP 2003 Appeal from the order of the Superior Court dated September 25, 2002 at No. 2638 EDA 2001, affirming the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County at No. 1993-C-211. 810 A.2d 2004 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002) ARGUED: April 14, 2004 CONCURRING OPINION MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CAPPY Decided: September 28, 2005 I join in all but one facet of the majority opinion. First, the majority rejects the adoption of the Lins test on the basis that it is inconsistent with Pennsylvania’s traditionally strong at-will doctrine, ostensibly because this test is susceptible to allowing exceptions to that doctrine. Then, in conflict with this rationale, the majority goes on to apply this very same test and ultimately to find an exception to our at-will doctrine. Unlike the majority, I would simply analyze this suggested exception to our at-will doctrine in accordance with our prior case law and the public policy considerations expressed therein.1 1 See Shick v. Shirey, 716 A.2d 1231, 1233-38 (Pa. 1998); Clay v. Advanced Computer Applications, Inc., 559 A.2d 917, 918 (Pa. 1988); Paul Lankenau Hospital, 569 A.2d 346, 348 (Pa. 1990); Geary v. United States Steel Corp., 319 A.2d 174, 180 (Pa. 1974); see also Amy M. Carlson, States Are Eroding At-Will Employment Doctrines: Will Pennsylvania Join (continued…) [J-65-2004] - 2 Applying this case law, which firmly establishes the primacy of the at-will doctrine in our Commonwealth, but which recognizes limited exceptions in cases of a violation of clear mandates of public policy, I would agree with the majority that a claim for wrongful discharge arises when a supervisor is terminated after refusing to force a subordinate employee to waive workers’ compensation benefits. Messrs. Justice Castille and Nigro join this concurring opinion. (…continued) the Crowd? 42 DUQ. L. REV. 511, 516 (Spring 2004); Kurt H. Decker, Pennsylvania’s Whistleblower Law’s Extension to Private Sector Employees: Has the Time Finally Come to Broaden Statutory Protection for All At-Will Employees? 38 DUQ. L. REV. 723, 736-42 (Spring 2000).