48 Pa. D. & C.5th 110
Pennsylvania Court of Common P...2015Background
- Plaintiff Michelle Czachor Krutulis, a psychiatric unit nurse, alleges wrongful discharge by Community Medical Center (CMC) after she raised concerns about a patient death in restraints (June 2005), claimed a training-signature sheet was forged, and contacted a Scranton Times reporter.
- Krutulis voluntarily resigned from CMC in March 2006 to work at Lackawanna County Long Term Care, then was rehired by CMC in May 2006 as an Admission and Discharge RN in the same psychiatric unit.
- In February 2007 CMC asked her to return to an earlier position; she declined, experienced scheduling changes, and was terminated on March 15, 2007.
- Complaint asserted a single wrongful-discharge count advancing two theories: termination in violation of public policy (reporting alleged forgery and contacting the press) and that she had provided "substantial consideration" when rehired such that she was not at-will.
- Court considered cross-motions for summary judgment (decided on briefs) and granted CMC summary judgment, dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination violated public policy (protected whistleblowing / First Amendment activity) | Krutulis contends she refused to participate in an illegal act (alleged forged signatures) and informed the press, actions protected as public-policy whistleblowing/First Amendment speech | CMC argues Krutulis produced no evidence linking the 2007 termination to 2005 statements and that the statements are not a recognized public-policy exception; no state action for First Amendment protection | Court held no genuine dispute: no evidence termination related to 2005 statements; claimed conduct not a cognizable public-policy exception and First Amendment does not apply to private employer here; claim fails |
| Whether Krutulis relinquished at-will status by giving "substantial consideration" when rehired | Krutulis says she left a secure position and returned to CMC based on promises (no weekends/holidays/flexible hours), providing substantial consideration that altered at-will status | CMC shows Krutulis left the other job voluntarily for preference, suffered no relocation or extraordinary hardship, and the rehired role was substantially similar to her prior role | Court held no genuine dispute: no additional/substantial consideration shown (no relocation, hardship, or unique benefit); employment remained at-will |
Key Cases Cited
- Guerra v. Redevelopment Authority of City of Philadelphia, 27 A.3d 1284 (Pa. Super. 2011) (Pennsylvania law presumes at-will employment)
- Werner v. Zazyczny, 681 A.2d 1331 (Pa. 1996) (at-will rule and exceptions)
- Janis v. AMP, Inc., 856 A.2d 140 (Pa. Super. 2004) (methods to rebut at-will presumption)
- Weaver v. Harpster, 975 A.2d 555 (Pa. 2009) (narrow public-policy exception analysis)
- Mikhail v. Pennsylvania Organization for Women in Early Recovery, 63 A.3d 313 (Pa. Super. 2013) (public-policy exception requires clear mandate)
- Donahue v. Federal Exp. Corp., 753 A.2d 238 (Pa. Super. 2000) (examples of substantial consideration and at-will analysis)
- Darlington v. General Electric, 504 A.2d 306 (Pa. Super. 1986) (definition of "additional consideration")
- Cashdollar v. Mercy Hosp., 595 A.2d 70 (Pa. Super. 1991) (relocation/hardship can constitute sufficient consideration)