Employer Cannot Terminate An At-Will Employee After Demanding She Perjure Herself At Deposition
Plaintiff alleged a viable public policy exception to the rule governing the termination of at-will employees where she claimed her employer demanded that she commit a crime, i.e., perjures herself in a disposition, and then terminated her for refusing to do so. The court denied in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff began working for Professional Security Broadband, Inc., or PSB, as an at-will employee in 2014. Insperity, Inc., a human resource outsourcing company, entered into a client services agreement with PSB in 2015 and became plaintiff’s co-employer. Richard Rockwell served as chairman of PSB’s board of directors during plaintiff’s employment. Plaintiff worked as vice president of human resources for PSB until Rockwell fired her in October 2017. She then filed this lawsuit against Rockwell, PSB, Insperity and related parties, asserting claims of wrongful discharge and intentional infliction of emotional distress. According to plaintiff, Rockwell asked her to commit perjury during a disposition that was part of a lawsuit involving PSB and a former employee. Plaintiff had, according to the opinion, assisted this former employee with the establishment of new company. Rockwell allegedly terminated plaintiff because she refused to lie in the deposition. Here, defendants argued they were entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff failed to produce evidence that her termination violated the state’s public policy. Pennsylvania precedent has long recognized that an employer may terminate an employee for any reason absent a contractual provision to the contrary. However, there are exceptions to this rule when the discharge of an at-will employee would threaten clear mandates of public policy, the court explained. A violation of public policy has consistently been held to support a claim for wrongful discharge where an employer requires an employee to commit a crime prevents an employee from complying with a statutorily imposed duty or discharges an employee when specifically prohibited from doing so by statute. Here, plaintiff alleged that her termination violated the state’s public policy as she was fired because she refused to commit perjury. Pennsylvania recognizes perjury as a crime, the court noted, citing 18 Pa.C.S 4902(a). Thus, plaintiff was required to produce sufficient evidence to establish that defendants required her to commit perjury, she refused to do so and she was fired as a result. Plaintiff admitted that she was not specifically asked to commit perjury or lie under oath. She testified, however, that Rockwell threatened and harassed her repeatedly regarding her testimony and continually asked her to “make something up.” Plaintiff believed that Rockwell’s conduct amounted to a request for her to lie under oath. While the evidence at bar was largely based on the competing testimony of plaintiff and Rockwell, a reasonable jury could find that Rockwell’s threats, harassment and other conduct in response to plaintiff’s truthful statements were an attempt to have plaintiff perjure herself, the court concluded in denying defendants relief in part. However, defendant Insperity was not a party to the underlying litigation and did not have any stake in that matter such that a jury could infer that the company benefitted from Rockwell’s alleged request for plaintiff’s perjured testimony, the court reasoned in granting Insperity relief.
Ref: Digests of Recent Opinions, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, 43 PLW 1145, Tuesday, December 15, 2020, Capriotti v. Rockwell et al, PICS Case NO. 20-1342 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 18. 2020)
Kindly visit our Employment Law and Business & Commercial Litigation websites or contact one of our Employment Law Attorneys, Philadelphia or Business Litigation Attorneys, Philadelphia for more information on this topic.