Rohner v. Atkinson, 118 A.3d 486

Rohner was the zoning enforcement officer for Middle Smithfield Township (2007–2013); duties included inspecting projects, issuing reports, and granting certificates of compliance.
East Stroudsburg Area School District built a project approved under a land development plan; Rohner issued written and oral reports in 2012 identifying roof leaks and deviations from the approved plan and refused to issue a certificate of compliance in March 2013.
The Township suspended Rohner (May 13, 2013), appointed an alternative zoning officer who found the project compliant, then terminated Rohner (May 23, 2013); the alternative officer later issued the certificate of compliance.
Rohner filed an amended complaint asserting (1) a whistleblower claim under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law for reporting wrongdoing/waste and (2) a wrongful discharge claim under the public-policy exception to at-will employment grounded in the Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) and Township zoning code.
The trial court dismissed the complaint on demurrer, concluding Rohner’s denial of the certificate was merely a job duty (not protected whistleblowing) and rejecting a public-policy protection for zoning officers; this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rohner’s reports/denial of certificate qualify as a protected “report of wrongdoing” under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law	Rohner: statute protects good-faith reports of wrongdoing even if made in the course of job duties; his reports exposed ordinance violations the Township enforces	Township: reports were made in the ordinary course of his job and thus not protected; whistleblower protection is for disclosures that go beyond job duties	Court: Reversed trial court — Rohner’s reports implicated the Township’s mission (enforcing zoning) and therefore state a whistleblower claim under Gray precedent
Whether Rohner may invoke the public-policy exception to at-will employment based on the MPC and zoning code	Rohner: firing to replace him so the certificate could be issued circumvented MPC/zoning protections and public policy protects zoning officers from discharge for performing duties	Township: no clear public policy protects zoning officers from termination; position is statutorily at-will and legislature/electorate provide remedies	Court: Affirmed trial court — no clear, established public policy protecting zoning officers from at-will discharge in these circumstances

Gray v. Hafer, 651 A.2d 221 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (employee’s report is protected only when it concerns duties the employer is charged to enforce)
Golaschevsky v. Dep’t of Environmental Protection, 720 A.2d 757 (Pa. 1998) (whistleblower claim requires report of employer-related wrongdoing and causal connection to adverse action)
Huffman v. Office of Personnel Management, 263 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (federal precedent holding disclosures made as part of job duties not protected; later abrogated by statute)
McLaughlin v. Gastrointestinal Specialists, Inc., 750 A.2d 283 (Pa. 2000) (Pennsylvania recognizes at-will employment absent clear public-policy exception)