63 A.3d 313
Pa. Super. Ct.2013Background
- Mikhail, an LPC, was POWER’s sole LPC and IOP therapist at POWER’s downtown Pittsburgh location beginning in November 2007.
- In May 2008, Mikhail refused to admit a registered sex offender into an IOP group of female abuse victims, citing ethical concerns and potential harm to existing members.
- POWER terminated Mikhail for insubordination on May 13, 2008 after she refused to comply with her supervisor’s instruction to include the offender.
- Mikhail filed suit on May 11, 2010, alleging wrongful termination in violation of Pennsylvania public policy, grounded in ACA/NBCC/ASGW ethics and public welfare.
- The trial court granted POWER’s preliminary objections, ultimately sustaining them; on appeal the Superior Court affirmed, holding that the public policy exception exists but did not support Mikhail’s claim given the record and controlling authorities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the termination violated a clear public policy as an at-will exception | Mikhail asserts ACA ethics and PA Code duties protect group members, creating public policy. | POWER contends no specific PA public policy supports termination for this conduct. | Public policy exists but not sufficiently demonstrated to sustain wrongful-discharge claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weaver v. Harpster, 601 Pa. 488, 975 A.2d 555 (Pa. 2009) (public policy exception limited to clear constitutional/statutory policies)
- Shick v. Shirey, 552 Pa. 590, 716 A.2d 1231 (Pa. 1998) (public policy exception for workers’ compensation claims)
- Donahue v. Federal Exp. Corp., 753 A.2d 238 (Pa. Super. 2000) (cannot discharge for statutory-prohibited actions; statutory policies guide remedies)
- McGonagle v. Union Fidelity Corp., 383 Pa. Super. 223, 556 A.2d 878 (Pa. Super. 1989) (professional ethics/judgment not automatically public policy; boundaries clarified)
- Reuther v. Fowler & Williams, Inc., 255 Pa. Super. 28, 386 A.2d 119 (Pa. Super. 1978) (jury service as protected public policy)
- Geary v. U.S. Steel Corp., 456 Pa. 171, 319 A.2d 174 (Pa. 1974) (public policy intrusions into employee life require strong justification)
- Field v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 388 Pa. Super. 400, 565 A.2d 1170 (Pa. Super. 1989) (statutory reporting obligations as public policy)