Gross v. Nova Chemicals Services, Inc.
161 A.3d 257
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Appellant Joseph Gross was Nova Chemicals’ at-will Chief Pilot from 2004 until his alleged constructive discharge on May 13, 2014; final base salary ≈ $321,500/year.
- A co-pilot, Gale Truitt, made anonymous, frivolous complaints about Gross; Nova investigated and found them meritless but declined to discipline Truitt for fear of an age-discrimination claim.
- Truitt’s behavior allegedly degraded in-flight communication, creating safety concerns and preventing Gross from exercising his FAA duty as pilot-in-command (14 C.F.R. § 91.3(a)).
- Gross repeatedly informed Nova HR and supervision of safety/communication problems and requested reassignment from Truitt; Nova did not provide a permanent solution and forced at least one flight pairing on April 7, 2014.
- Gross filed suit alleging wrongful (constructive) termination based on violation of public policy (relying on FAA duties and 74 Pa.C.S. § 5301), Nova filed preliminary objections (demurrer), and the trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice; Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gross pleaded a wrongful termination claim under the public-policy exception to at-will employment | Gross: Nova’s refusal to address crew communication/safety violated FAA duty of pilot-in-command and implicated Pennsylvania public policy (via 74 Pa.C.S. § 5301) protecting aviation safety | Nova: Complaint relies on federal FAA regulation only and does not invoke any Pennsylvania statute/regulation establishing the same public policy | Held: Dismissed — bald reliance on a federal regulation is insufficient; § 5301 does not itself adopt FAA rules as Pennsylvania public policy absent a promulgated PA regulation mirroring the FAA rule |
| Whether the trial court improperly made factual determinations on preliminary objections | Gross: trial court allegedly resolved factual disputes prematurely at demurrer stage | Nova: defenses implicit in demurrer focus on legal insufficiency; plaintiff failed to plead a legally cognizable public-policy claim | Held: Superior Court did not reach this issue because it disposed of the case on the legal public-policy ground (dismissal affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- McLaughlin v. Gastrointestinal Specialists, Inc., 750 A.2d 283 (Pa. 2000) (holding that mere violation of a federal statute/regulation, without showing Pennsylvania public policy, does not support a wrongful discharge claim)
- Weaver v. Harpster, 975 A.2d 555 (Pa. 2009) (courts narrowly construe public-policy exception; public policy must be obvious from Pennsylvania sources)