was somehow more culpable than she for the acceptance of the personal check. From these arguments she concludes that her discharge violated public policy.
Plaintiff has, however, failed to cite any authority for her position. According to the most recent pronouncement of the Pennsylvania Superior Court on the issue of the employment-at-will doctrine and exceptions thereto, there are only two recognized public policy constraints on employment-at-will in Pennsylvania: denial of employment on the basis of a conviction for which the offender has been pardoned and discharge of an employee for accepting jury service. Banas v. Matthews International Corp., 348 Pa. Super. 464, 502 A. 2d 637 (1985).
In holding that the law of Pennsylvania permits a cause of action for wrongful discharge, "where the employment termination abridges a significant and recognized public policy", Novosel v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 721 F.2d 894, 898 (3d Cir. 1983), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit also delineated the standard to be applied in determining whether an employment termination implicates a recognized public policy. The Court held that "a clearly mandated public policy" is one which "strikes at the heart of a citizen's social right, duties and responsibilities". Id. at 899 (Citation omitted).
As a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction, our function is to apply the law of Pennsylvania to the facts of this case, not to create a new cause of action. Wolk v. Saks Fifth Ave., Inc., 728 F.2d 221 (3d Cir. 1984). Neither is it our function to expand a recognized cause of action beyond the bounds established by the state courts.
The task of this Court, then, is to determine whether Mosser's termination was unlawful for public policy reasons. In doing so, we look to the general principle enunciated by the Court of Appeals and the specific circumstances in which Pennsylvania courts have allowed an action for wrongful discharge for public policy reasons.
We conclude that the public policy for which Mosser contends does not fall within the parameters identified in general terms by the Third Circuit and has not been specifically recognized by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Moreover, while Mosser was an "innocent" party in the sense that she was not knowingly involved in the deception attempted by the account executive, in another sense she was not "innocent" in that she admittedly violated an established office procedure of which she had notice. Mosser's contention seems to be that because the manager of her office often disregarded certain other procedures contained in the Thomson McKinnon Branch Operations Manual and because she had received no formal training for her position the Court should declare it a violation of public policy for her employer to have enforced the cash handling procedure in her case. To so hold would excessively intrude upon private employment relationships and would impose a judicially defined "fairness" standard. Such a course is beyond the Court's proper role in these matters. Mosser did not lose her job for any reason touching upon her rights and duties as a citizen and, therefore, her termination was not a violation of public policy. Since she has now abandoned all other asserted claims which, in any event, she obviously cannot support, summary judgment will be granted in favor of the defendant.
AND NOW, this 14th day of July, 1986, upon consideration of defendant's motion for summary judgment and plaintiff's response thereto, IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED and judgment is entered in favor of the defendant, Thomson McKinnon Securities, Inc., and against the plaintiff, Shirley Mosser.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.