Court Opinion

ID: 9746501
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:19:14.74723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:13.937451
License: Public Domain

Chief Justice CAPPY,
Concurring.
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 *309case law and the public policy considerations expressed therein.1
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.

. See Shick v. Shirey, 552 Pa. 590, 716 A.2d 1231, 1233-38 (1998); Clay v. Advanced Computer Applications, Inc., 522 Pa. 86, 559 A.2d 917, 918 (1989) ; Paul v. Lankenau Hospital, 524 Pa. 90, 569 A.2d 346, 348 (1990) ; Geary v. United States Steel Corp., 456 Pa. 171, 319 A.2d 174, 180 (1974); see also Amy M. Carlson, States Are Eroding At-Will Employment Doctrines: Will Pennsylvania Join the Crowd? 42 Duo. L.Rev. 511, 516 (Spring 2004); Kurt H. Decker, Pennsylvania’s Whistle-blower Law’s Extension to Private Sector Employees: Has the Time Finally Come to Broaden Statutory Protection for All At-Will Employees? 38 Duo. L.Rev. 723, 736-42 (Spring 2000).