Rodgers v. Lorenz
25 A.3d 1229
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Rodgers appeals Feb. 1, 2010 order sustaining Carload Express's preliminary objections and dismissing some claims without prejudice to WCB proceedings; appellate relief requested.
- Rodgers and Lorenz were Carload Express train conductors; Lorenz threatened and choked Rodgers in March 2005, which Rodgers reported to VP Richard Rupp.
- In fall 2005, Rodgers and Lorenz worked at same site with ongoing harassment during shift changes.
- Dec. 15–16, 2005: Lorenz threatened violence and spat on Rodgers; Rodgers planned to attend a criminal proceeding.
- Rodgers was fired on December 18, 2005 after reporting the crime and planning to attend court; he sued under CVEPA, breach of contract, negligent supervision, and Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law.
- The trial court dismissed the CVEPA claim for failure to state a claim and held other claims preempted by Workers' Compensation Act; Rodgers appealed, challenging both the CVEPA interpretation and preemption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CVEP Act scope pre-attendance protection | Rodgers argues CVEPA protects victims before attendance at court hearings. | Carload argues CVEPA protects only after attendance or has limited temporal scope. | CVEPA protects before and during court attendance; dismissal reversed. |
| Preemption by Workers' Compensation Act | WC Act does not preempt CVEPA claims. | WC Act preempts non-CVEPA claims; remaining claims barred. | WC Act does not preempt the CVEPA claim; issue lacks merit; partial reversal and remand for proceedings on CVEPA claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Swisher v. Pitz, 868 A.2d 1228 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard for reviewing demurrers; abuse of discretion)
- Reeves v. Middletown Athletic Ass'n, 866 A.2d 1115 (Pa. Super. 2004) (demonstrates review standards for preliminary objections)
- Commonwealth v. Gilmour Mfg. Co., 573 Pa. 143, 822 A.2d 676 (2003) (statutory interpretation guiding plain-language approach)
- Reuther v. Fowler & Williams, Inc., 255 Pa. Super. 28, 386 A.2d 119 (Pa. Super. 1978) (public policy exception to at-will discharge recognized)