PA. COURTS DECLINE TO FIND PUBLIC POLICY EXEMPTION FOR AN AT WILL EMPLOYEE TERMINATED AFTER BEING CRIMINALLY CHARGED
Employer was entitled to summary judgment in this wrongful discharge lawsuit where plaintiff, who was charged with but exonerated of theft charges, failed to identify criteria enough to uphold the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine. The court recommended affirmance of its order granting defendant summary judgment.
Plaintiff Melissa Deal worked as a registered nurse for the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, or CHOP, as an at-will employee. The Delaware County District Attorney’s office charged her with 58 counts of theft from her elderly neighbor, James Mooney, in August 2015. A few days prior to Mooney’s death, Deal had secured power of attorney for the elderly man. According to the commonwealth, Deal wrote checks to herself as “gifts” and changed the beneficiary designation in Mooney’s investment account to benefit her using confidential information she obtained from Mooney’s family. Shortly after Deal was charged, CHOP placed her on a 90-day administrative leave based on concerns regarding Deal’s access to confidential patient information. According to stipulations associated with the leave, if Deal was exonerated within a 90-day period, she would be eligible to return to her position with back pay. If Deal was not exonerated during that period, she would be terminated with the opportunity to be rehired if she were ultimately exonerated in the future. Deal was not exonerated after the 90-day period; thus, CHOP terminated her employment on Jan. 8, 2016. The hospital offered her a severance package, but Deal declined the offer. She was acquitted of the theft charges roughly a year and a half later. Deal and her husband then filed this lawsuit against CHOP, asserting wrongful discharge in violation of public policy and loss of consortium. The trial court granted CHOP’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs filed an appeal, prompting the court’s opinion. At common law, under the at-will doctrine, an employer may terminate an at-will employee for any reason unless that reason violates a clear public policy emanating from either the state constitution or statutory pronouncement, the court explained. Moreover, the public policy exception to the at-will doctrine should be applied only in the narrowest of circumstances. Deal failed to identify the criteria sufficient to uphold the public policy exception to the at-will doctrine, the court concluded. Pennsylvania courts have historically declined to find public policy exemption for employees who are terminated after being criminally charged. Moreover, even assuming arguendo that plaintiff provided evidence to uphold the public policy exception to the at-will doctrine, CHOP had both legitimate and plausible grounds for her termination, the decision noted. The hospital placed Deal on administrative leave after she was charged with theft from an elderly man due to the serious threat that patients would be exposed to if Deal continued to have access to confidential patient information. Thus, CHOP acted properly within its discretion to terminate Deal to safeguard the interests of its patients, the court reasoned in its opinion recommending affirmance.
Reference: Digests of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 42 PLW 539, Tuesday, Junes 4, 2019, Deal v. Children’s Hop. Of Philadelphia, PICS Case No. 19-0608 (C.P. Philadelphia May 6, 2019) Kennedy, J.
Kindly visit our Employment Law and Business Planning/Law websites or contact one of our Employment Law Attorneys at 215-977-8200 for more information on this topic.